Posted 4 years ago on Dec. 2, 2012, 9:50 p.m. EST by shadz66
(19985)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"Climate Change Is Happening Now – A Carbon Price Must Follow",

'The extreme weather events of 2012 are what we have been warning of for 25 years, but the answer is plain to see'.

by James Hansen.

Will our short attention span be the end of us? Just a month after the second "storm of a century" in two years, the media moves on to the latest scandal with barely a retrospective glance at the implications of the extreme climate anomalies we have seen.

Hurricane Sandy was not just a storm. It was a stark illustration of the power that climate change can deliver – today – to our doorsteps.

Ask the homeowners along the New Jersey and New York shores still homeless. Ask the local governments struggling weeks later to turn on power to their cold, darkened towns and cities. Ask the entire north-east coast, reeling from a catastrophe whose cost is estimated at $50bn and rising. (I am not brave enough to ask those who've lost husbands or wives, children or grandparents).

I bring up these facts sadly, as one who has urged us to heed the scientific evidence on climate change for the past 25 years. The science is clear: climate change is here, now.

Superstorm Sandy is not the first storm, and certainly won't be the last. Still, it is hard for us as individual human beings to connect the dots. That's where observation, data and scientific analysis help us see.

No credible scientist disputes that we have warmed our climate by almost 1.5C over land areas in the past century, most of that in the past 30 years.

As my colleagues and I demonstrated in a peer-reviewed study published this summer, climate extremes are already occurring much more frequently in the world we have warmed through our reliance on fossil fuels.

Our analysis showed that extreme summer heat anomalies used to be infrequent: covering only 0.1-0.2% of the globe in any given summer during the base period of our study, from 1951 to 1980. During the past decade, as the average global temperature rose, such extremes have covered 10% of the land.

Extreme temperatures deliver more than heat.

The water cycle is especially sensitive to rising temperatures. Increased heat speeds up evaporation, causing more extreme droughts, like the $5bn (and counting) drought in Texas and Oklahoma. It is linked to an expanding wildfire season and an increase by several fold in the frequency of large fires in the American west.

The heat also leads to more extreme sea surface temperatures – a key culprit behind Sandy's devastating force. The latent heat in atmospheric water vapour is the fuel that powers tornadoes, thunderstorms, and hurricanes. Stepping up evaporation with warmer temperatures is like stepping on the gas: More energy-rich vapour condenses into water drops, releasing more latent heat as it does so, causing more powerful storms, increased rainfall and more extreme flooding. This is not a matter of belief. This is high-school science class.

The chances of getting a late October hurricane in New York without the help of global warming are extremely small. In that sense, you can blame Sandy on global warming. Sandy was the strongest recorded storm, measured by barometric pressure, to make landfall north of Cape Hatteras, eclipsing the hurricane of 1938.

But this fixation on determining the blame for a particular storm, or disputing the causal link between climate change and this or that storm, is misguided.

A better path forward means listening to the growing chorus – Sandy, extreme droughts and wildfires, intense rainstorms, record-breaking melting of Arctic sea ice – and taking action. Think of it like taking out an insurance policy for the planet.

We can fix this. The answer is a price on carbon. We must make the price of fossil fuels honest, reflecting their cost to society including the economic devastation wrought by storms like Sandy, the toll on farmland and ecosystems, as well as priceless human lives.

Whether that price takes the shape of a carbon tax, as some in Washington are now willing to discuss, or a carbon fee, as I have advocated, a price on carbon lets the market find the most effective ways to phase out our reliance on fossil fuels. It also moves us to a sustainable energy future where energy choices are made by individuals and communities, not by Washington mandates and lobbyists.

A carbon fee, collected from fossil fuel companies, will increase consumer costs. So the money that is collected should be distributed to the public. As people try to minimise their energy costs to keep money for other things, their actions will stimulate the economy, drive innovations and transition us away from fossil fuels.

If we make our demand for action clear enough, I am optimistic that our leaders in Washington can look beyond the short-term challenges of today to see the looming, long-term threats ahead, and the answer that is right in front of them. We can't simply allow the next news cycle to distract us from the real task ahead.

Back in the 1980s, I introduced the concept of "climate dice" to make clear the difference between natural variability and climate-change driven extremes. As I predicted, the climate dice in the 21st century are now "loaded". It's not just bad luck Sandy pummelled America's coasts, extreme drought devastated its midlands and wildfires scorched its mountains.

601 Comments

A carbon tax will restrict energy usage for those that need it the most the poor, and won't restrict usage by the wealthy. The cost to industry will be passed along in higher prices on all goods to the rest of us.

We need to push alternative energy. Break the central distribution schemes of the utilities.

"As negotiators try to replace the ageing Kyoto protocol, failed negotiations could result in more emissions." We are developing new oil fields whilst being fully aware of the real repercussions & Emperor Nero and his fiddle come to mind !!!

The Precautionary Principle is in order, so we agree but an entire reappraisal of the way we understand : money ; cost ; gain ; profit ; benefit ; loss and 'Capitalism's Externalities' - also has to occur if we are to find holistic solutions, going forward.

Agreed. Society needs psychological restructuring and control over media as well as government by the people is an a solute need in effecting this.

However, corporatism has a hold of both gov and media. Which is why ART5 is absolutely needed. In the current ows forum, cognitive infiltration is so complete, people cannot discuss solution, only the sensation of the problem dynamics increasing.

"Population growth is actually in the poorest countries where emissions are incredibly low, so that's not a problem. The problem is, unfortunately, the richest - the richest people on the planet are responsible for the majority of the emissions. So we do have to do something about their emissions. But, ultimately, we're not saying this is solely the responsibility of people in that richest 10 percent. You don't have to be that rich to get into the top 10 percent in terms of salaries in the U.S. or Europe. But the real problem here, the real blockers are the divested interests in the fossil fuel industry, sort of, the carbon barons. That's a tiny elite and they're the ones who are really holding back progress."

Alas ...''The scientists are virtually unanimous that climate change is real, is caused by human activity and is already causing devastating problems in the United States and around the world. And, they tell us that if we do not act boldly the situation will only become much worse in years to come in terms of drought, floods, extreme storms and acidification of the oceans.

And ... ''Sadly, we now have a Republican Party that is more concerned about protecting the profits of Exxon, BP and Shell and the coal industry than protecting the planet. While fossil fuel companies are raking in record profits, climate change ravages our planet and our people – all because the wealthiest industry in the history of our planet has bribed politicians into ignoring science.'' from:

Why your comment has zero points is beyond me. Who tf would vote that down or why would you start out with zero points? You, of all people! Just freaking outrageous. We don't have time for petty bull shit anymore.

I really don't know why I have ''zero points'' either! Apparently my points should be frozen (no biggie per se) & I should start with ''0'' (admittedly annoying) & also be unable to cast my vote for yours or others' comments (fundamentally unfair) too!! Alas such are the petty tyrannies I & others have faced here - for nearly 4 & a half years but we stumble and struggle on for Bernie & The 99%!!! Thanx for your solidarity & links & in compliment and by Paul Krugman ...

Consider that: ''The scientists are virtually unanimous that climate change is real, is caused by human activity and is already causing devastating problems in the United States and around the world. And, they tell us, if we do not act boldly the situation will only become much worse in years to come in terms of drought, floods, extreme storms and acidification of the oceans. Sadly, we now have a Republican Party that is more concerned about protecting the profits of Exxon, BP and Shell and the coal industry than protecting the planet. While fossil fuel companies are raking in record profits, climate change ravages our planet and our people – all because the wealthiest industry in the history of our planet has bribed politicians into ignoring science.'' - from ...

''The media largely relegate the greatest challenge facing humanity to footnotes as industry and politicians hurtle us towards systemic collapse of the planet.''

Alas Bernie is now out of the chase ... because he shot his own fox! I'm still getting over it, tbh!! ONLY Dr.Jill Sanders is saying what he did .. and more & Bernie Sanders & Nina Turner are sadly missing a historic opportunity - by still being so hopelessly attached to Banking Oligarchy's Corporate Duopoly!!!

Yep, ''let's not forget the connections between the economy and the environment" .. and USA's War Macine ... deprives The 99% of the fruits of democracy and the services like Healthcare; Education, Debt Free College - that The 99%'s taxes SHOULD pay for! Per the thread & your reply, pls consider:

"Chomsky: The US is to an unusual extent a business-run society, where short-term concerns of profit and market share displace rational planning. The US is also unusual in the enormous scale of religious fundamentalism. The impact on understanding of the world is extraordinary. In national polls almost half of those surveyed have reported that they believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago (or less) and that man shares no common ancestor with the ape. There are similar beliefs about the Second Coming. Senator James Inhofe, who headed the Senate Committee on the environment, speaks for many when he assures us that "God's still up there and there's a reason for this to happen," so it is sacrilegious for mere humans to interfere."

Yep, we're in trouble. And, I fixed the link above and add it here again:

"...the Arctic, where temperatures are rising at least twice as fast as the average global temperature increase."

"Loss of habitat and the drastic reduction of animals' hunting ranges due to receding sea ice now threaten polar bears, walruses and several species of seals, among other animals.

The landscape is changing dramatically as well, and the implications are dire not only for animals in the Arctic, but for all of us."

"Arctic sea ice plays a critical role in the Arctic climate system and marine ecosystem, and as we're learning, its disappearance is having broad effects well beyond the Arctic: from weather patterns to animal migrations to ocean current systems to food webs," she told Truthout. "Its loss will be felt directly and indirectly by billions of people."

The good news for the crew and passengers of the Crystal Serenity is they haven't encountered much ice (so far) on their voyage (via the Northwest Passage) from Seward, Alaska to New York. The bad news for the rest of us is the same.

"More than anything, the cruise is a symbol, a harbinger of the tourism and commercial traffic that is likely to fill the once-isolated, ice-choked waters of the Arctic. Many scientists have projected that the ocean could become virtually free of ice during summers at some point, perhaps as soon as the next few decades.

That would leave the passage open to a wave of ships that could transform what, until now, has been among the least traveled places on Earth. Such a scenario has caused angst among those eager to explore the Arctic as well as those who want it protected."

How totally idiotic these people are. I just saw a show on people buying up pristine, undeveloped islands on Vanuatu and Patagonia to "develop." Unbelievable.

Quantity has a quality all its own. A few people "developing" pristine places for people to "get away from it all" ruin the pristine quality once the number of people there has increased enough.

In my lifetime, I have seen many pristine forests, mountains, lakes, islands, deserts, etc. that I used to haunt "developed." They have just lost that quality through the numbers. We can never get away from ourselves. I wonder if we've already detonated the methane bomb with these "End-of-the-World" craters in Russia.

From which: ''Negotiators at the 21st UN Conference of the Parties (COP) in Paris are rapidly moving toward a global climate agreement that promises death and destruction - especially for certain small island and African nations.

''If negotiators finalize the deal, it will lock each and every one of us into a world that promises nearly 3 degrees Celsius of planetary warming above preindustrial levels and - operates within a framework that fails to recognize the reality that capitalism is inherently unsustainable as a system that demands infinite growth on a planet with finite resources.''

Thanx for your excerpts above. There is much more going on in Paris than meets the eye OR that we'll be told about .. until (at best) much later - when it'll be too late! Seasons best wishes at you and yours.

“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

"But even as France hosts world leaders to address climate change, the government's blessing in allowing league soccer games and the Christmas market on the Champs Élysées to move forward reminds us, as it did after 9/11, why we must look beyond Western state actors for answers to global problems: because the highest civic duties in so-called "developed" nations are consumption and the protection of the capitalist markets that are fueling the climate crisis."

Because, truth is, if we don't stop consuming so goddamn much, we aren't going to be effective at saving the planet.

From which - ''Hansen's take is basically that all the good intentions and optimistic pledges in the world won't really bring about meaningful change, unless steps are taken to re-balance the financial incentives that cut in favor of dirty forms of energy like oil and coal energy. To that end .. Hansen supports a fee on carbon — as The Guardian noted, the believes the word fee might work better than tax, given the loaded political implications of taxation''

At what point do we humans accept that record temps, rainfall and flooding across Northern England, South Eastern USA & many, Many, MANY other places worldwide, is connected to Anthropomorphic Global Warming?! Thanx for the eye-opening links and furthermore, please also consider that ...

''The great delay in climate action has dramatically increased climate change impacts and the amount of carbon dioxide that we must now deal with to prevent even greater impacts. Delay has been caused by the debate casting doubt on climate science in ways that have proven to be very effective in similar debates about smoking, acid rain & ozone-depleting chemicals. Because of the doubt - fundamentally important new climate science has failed to escape the confines of academia & then proceed into the public realm where it can move policy - literally - into the 21st century.'' Excerpted from ...

which then ends - ''In stark contrast to the ongoing denial circus in the United States, key US allies like France, Germany, Canada and Mexico, along with the heads of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund & the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development - all recently made statements in support of having the world put a price on carbon emissions in an effort to work to mitigate ACD.

Therefore, ''All in all, the United States lags behind the rest of the world considerably when it comes to acknowledging the brutal reality of anthropogenic climate disruption. This reluctance to face facts puts the whole world - and particularly the world's most marginalized people - at risk.''

'' * '' = TWINKLE & what's beyond ''outrageous'' and well past ''nuts' and deep into ''psycho'' is bizarrely the fact that ONLY POTUS 2016 candidate with any sort of resemblance of a rational response to our Anthropomorphic Climate Change is Bernie! The oldest guy in the game!! All the others have climbed into bed &/or up the asses of Gas/Oil/Chemical Corps! Thanx for your excellent link & in compliment:

However, as the article points out: "California has been grappling with an unprecedented drought that covers nearly 95 percent of the state, and experienced one of its driest years ever in 2015. The past several years have been marked by wildfires, water rationing, and mountaintops without snow. And because California is the nation’s top agriculture producer, the situation threatens to upend the United States’ food production system."

Hillary Clinton barely beats this lunatic in polls. So, Bernie Sanders either pushes through at the convention, goes third party, or we're basically screwed, sorry to say.

''Trump Tells .. Californians There's No Drought''!!! That's just the kind of head in the sand; ass in the air thinking that tRUMP excels at!! So that is exactly why his ass must be kicked & ONLY Bernie can do that with any certainty! Thus, fyi:

It looks like the braggadocio in chief, straw-brained scarecrow in chief, or lunatic in chief will be anointed due to Mx. Cheese's funkiness. Tera eRex barging through the bamboo wall to devour Mx. Cheese is indeed a scene from our monster v. monster movie. I can see the ripples in the glass of water and I can hear the thumpets.

California is not stupid though. It has Stanford University which is really world-famous for its students who have dropped out of Stanford and molded the modern world (the U.S.A. is famous for its dropouts of many kinds, from the Old World, from the Empire, from college, from the Vietnam war draft, from unsustainable mountains of debts, etc.). I hope that however retarded the politics is at Stanford, it still promulgates scientific facts and saves California.

California's coastal cities can build a parallel system for seawater distribution so toilet flushing can use seawater instead. It can also try, on federal and multi-state level, to get some meltwater diverted from the Continental Divide drawing water from the vast Mississippi Valley's watershed. California's agricultural industry can improve its water efficiency with better technologies. New buildings can be built in ancient Roman style as a roof-size giant funnel with a cistern underneath to collect and use rainwater for gardening, cleaning, and flushing. These are infrastructure projects that can enrich Trump Construction.

What is the carbon dioxide emission from the Arctic? Cold water can hold more carbon dioxide than warm water so have we got the champagne bottle uncorked? Warm water tends not to have ice covering that reflects sunlight so it can warm up much faster than ice-covered cold water. Is the permafrost melting enough to have great emission of methane? Is effervescence coming soon?

Did you notice the building up of the hockey stick in the graph? It will be sad if we haven't built up the hockey stick enough to play before the arctic ice rink melts away. I guess an uncorked bottle of champagne is enough of a consolation for us. It'll be bubbly time!

"...the scale and rate of change on measures such as CO2 and methane concentrations in the atmosphere were much larger and faster than the changes that defined the start of the holocene.

Humans have introduced entirely novel changes, geologically speaking, such as the roughly 300m metric tonnes of plastic produced annually. Concrete has become so prevalent in construction that more than half of all the concrete ever used was produced in the past 20 years.

Wildlife, meanwhile, is being pushed into an ever smaller area of the Earth, with just 25% of ice-free land considered wild now compared to 50% three centuries ago. As a result, rates of extinction of species are far above long-term averages."

How totally depressing. And, when you look back at the history of all of this, the root cause always goes back to capitalism because capitalism doesn't care about anything but profit. We humans need to start controlling our economic system rather than letting it control us because it's ruining us and our beautiful home.

''The problem is Big Oil. Simply put, Big Oil is a bad investment fueled by irrational exuberance, chronic cronyism and an increasingly indefensible misallocation of capital. And decades of throwing good money after bad has produced a distorted economic system that socializes risk, privatizes profits, externalizes costs and misallocates capital. This continues because policy makers sustain it with taxpayer-funded subsidies, costly tax breaks and low-overhead access to publicly held resources.'' from

'An underlying problem for federal rangers is that, in some ways at least, they’ve been hung out to dry on the range. In a 2015 report, the US Forest Service reported that the steady growth of 'Western wildfires had sucked the agency’s non-fire funds dry, creating tensions as delays fueled a sense among locals that federal agencies take arbitrary actions. Because of a $115 million dip in funding, “the agency [has had] to forego opportunities to … meet public expectations for services,” the report, “The Rising Cost of Wildfire Operations,” stated.' : http://news.yahoo.com/ransacked-oregon-refuge-shows-disdain-toward-america-rangers-193649213.html

Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) has deadly consequences, such as more wildfires in the American West, draining the budget to take care of the land, leading to arson, and eventually armed occupation of federal facility and killing an occupier. Ranching in the West became harder and incomes of the mostly white people were hit hard.

It seems eerily like what had happened in Syria. ACC led to economic stress of the populace which found the government as a scapegoat when it did not respond benevolently. In Syria, the difference between Alawites and Sunnis fueled the growth of the rift apart. In the U.S., the "black" administration and the whites of the American West accustomed to much frontier freedom have racial undertones that can form a rift apart.

Continuing using oil and coal can worsen ACC but we should only migrate people's livelihoods out of the fossil fuel sectors in an orderly way. Pulling people to replacement sectors (such as installing equipments for wind-generated electricity, diverting some water from the Rockies to the Colorado River to feed and sell water to the sun-drenched American Southwest including Los Angeles, generating hydro-electricity in the process, and converting timber into biofuels for trucking [which a carbon tax will help]) instead of pushing them out of fossil fuel (the American West has significant oil, gas, and coal sectors dragged down by the low prices of these commodities) sectors without livelihoods can alleviate the pain.

Renminbi is under pressure to be devalued so Russia is creating a demand for it which is great for stabilizing it. China previously ordered banks to hold more renminbi reserves. IMF tried to entice central banks to do the same by including renminbi in the Special Drawing Rights, with little success. Hopefully, Russia can catch the falling knife and prevent China's potential domestic capital flight.

That may well all be true and thanx for your interesting link but THE significant wider/bigger point (imo) is the nature of ownership of The Chinese Central Bank! It is NOT ... a Club/Cartel of Private, Dynastic, Banking Interests - BUT is, Wholly Owned And Backed by The Chinese State!! Please think about the implications of that difference as I point out that the very same applies to Iran now & did apply to Libya, where the first action by the new regime (or at least one of new regimes)was to institute the creation of a new Private, Central Bank!!! Finally, more in keeping with the subject matter of this thread, consider..

China may be ahead of the U.S. in CO2 emission because it has more manufacturing industries.

Since Obama and Wen Jiabao came out of Copenhagen in 2009 with the let-down 2C target, numerous events have happened that corroborated the case for anthropogenic climate change. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has already exceeded 400 parts per million. Considering the name of the 350.org which is supposed to aim at the target of 350 parts per million, it is shocking that we are already well beyond that. It's sure enough that we have already experienced many unusual but expected events.

It's a good plan. It may be better if we can relate it more to people's livelihoods. Many of the elephants have myopia so they cannot see the diminutive mosqu-itoes. Perhaps scratching the bites may awaken them.

I had my shocks when I found out that during Superstorm Sandy, the streets of lower Manhattan below 34th street were flooded. I might have been drowned on FDR Drive or in the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel. Sheesh, we even ran out of gasoline for a while. It's not that we did not have gasoline but we could not pump it up from the underground tanks because the electricity to gas stations was knocked out. It turned out luckily that Hurricane Irene had warned us beforehand but nearly back-to-back "Storm of the Century" in just a few years were very unusual, to say the very least.

Like the cigarette-smoking-to-cancer connection, it makes much sense to build up civil defense so we don't lose electricity or have our streets flooded before near-absolute confirmation of ACC. It got very cold and dark for some people, both wealthy and poor alike. Yes, indeed, one can be stranded on a high floor of a high-rise luxury apartment building (without electricity, water, heat, or elevator service for a month), even in Manhattan.

It's a good plan. True. And, it's a start for America, and for the world, because we mustn't forget that we use more energy than the rest of the world and we are therefore, to blame, more than the rest of the world. So, we must lead the way, and Bernie Sanders is a good person to do that.

Sandy was an eye opener and it will take the wealthy being affected before anything is done, unless of course, we can get someone like Bernie into office who is willing to stand up to big interests.

"Emissions are rising, ice is melting and yet the response of governments is simply to pretend that none of it is happening".

by George Monbiot.

It was the year of living dangerously. In 2012 governments turned their backs on the living planet, demonstrating that no chronic problem, however grave, will take priority over an immediate concern, however trivial. I believe there has been no worse year for the natural world in the past half-century.

Three weeks before the minimum occurred, the melting of the Arctic's sea ice broke the previous record. Remnants of the global megafauna – such as rhinos and bluefin tuna – were shoved violently towards extinction. Novel tree diseases raged across continents. Bird and insect numbers continued to plummet, coral reefs retreated, marine life dwindled. And those charged with protecting us and the world in which we live pretended that none of it was happening.

Their indifference was distilled into a great collective shrug at the Earth Summit in June. The first summit, 20 years before, was supposed to have heralded a new age of environmental responsibility. During that time, thanks largely to the empowerment of corporations and the ultra-rich, the square root of nothing has been achieved. Far from mobilising to address this, in 2012 the leaders of some of the world's most powerful governments – the US, the UK, Germany and Russia – didn't even bother to turn up.

But they did send their representatives to sabotage it. The Obama administration even sought to reverse commitments made by George Bush Sr in 1992. The final declaration was a parody of inaction. While the 190 countries that signed it expressed "deep concern" about the world's escalating crises, they agreed no new targets, dates or commitments, with one exception. Sixteen times they committed themselves to "sustained growth", a term they used interchangeably with its polar opposite, "sustainability".

The climate meeting in Doha at the end of the year produced a similar combination of inanity and contradiction. Governments have now begun to concede, without evincing any great concern, that they will miss their target of no more than 2C of global warming this century. Instead we're on track for between four and six degrees. To prevent climate breakdown, coal burning should be in steep decline. Far from it: the International Energy Agency reports that global use of the most carbon-dense fossil fuel is climbing by about 200m tonnes a year. This helps to explain why global emissions are rising so fast.

Our leaders now treat climate change as a guilty secret. Even after the devastation of Hurricane Sandy and the record droughts and wildfires that savaged the US, the two main presidential contenders refused to mention the subject, except for one throwaway sentence each. Has an issue this big ever received as little attention in a presidential race?

The same failures surround the other forces of destruction. In 2012 European governments flunked their proposed reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, which is perfectly designed to maximise environmental damage. The farm subsidies it provides are conditional on farmers destroying the vegetation (which also means the other wildlife) on their land. We pay €55bn a year to trash the natural world.

This contributes to what I have come to see as a great global polishing: a rubbing away of ecosystems and natural structures by the intensification of farming, fishing, mining and other industries. Looking back on this year a few decades hence, this destruction will seem vastly more significant than any of the stories with which the media is obsessed. Like governments, media companies have abandoned the living world.

In the UK in 2012, the vandals were given the keys to the art gallery. Environmental policy is now in the hands of people – such as George Osborne, Owen Paterson, Richard Benyon and Eric Pickles – who have no more feeling for the natural world than the Puritans had for fine art. They are busy defacing the old masters and smashing the ancient sculptures.

They have lit a bonfire of environmental regulations, hobbled bodies such as Natural England and the Environment Agency and ensured that the countryside becomes even more of an exclusive playground for the ultra-rich, unhampered by effective restraints on the burning of grouse moors, the use of lead shot, the killing of birds of prey and the spraying of pesticides that are wiping out our bees and other invertebrates.

In the same spirit, the government has reduced the list of possible marine conservation zones from 127 to 31. Even these 31 will be protected in name only: the fishing industry will still be allowed to rampage through them. A fortnight ago, the UK lobbied successfully for quotas of several overexploited fish species to be raised, while pouring scorn on the scientific evidence that shows this is madness.

George Osborne has done the same thing to the UK's climate change policies. Though even the big power companies oppose him, he is seeking to scrap or delay our targets for cutting carbon emissions and to ensure that we remain hooked on natural gas as our primary source of power. The green investment bank which was supposed to have funded the transition to new technologies is the only state bank in Europe that is forbidden to borrow. It might as well not be there at all.

If there is hope, it lies with the people. Opinion polls show that voters do not support their governments' inaction. Even a majority of Conservatives believe that the UK should generate most of its electricity from renewables by 2030. In the US, 80% of people polled now say that climate change will be a serious problem for their country if nothing is done about it: a substantial rise since 2009. The problem is that most people are not prepared to act on these beliefs. Citizens, as well as governments and the media, have turned their faces away from humanity's greatest problem.

To avoid another terrible year like 2012, we must translate these passive concerns into a mass mobilisation. Groups such as 350.org show how it might be done. If this annus horribilis tells us anything, it is that action, in the absence of such mobilisation, is simply not going to happen. Governments care only as much as their citizens force them to care. Nothing changes unless we change.

Yes! 'If there is hope, it lies with the people' & 'we must translate these passive concerns into a mass mobilisation'! Despite being from a British point of view to some extent, thanks for this really very interesting article.

"If there is hope, it lies with the people." & thanx for your excellent link A4C and I recommend the short (17m) video to all interested readers. "2012 was a year of extreme weather, from the melting of the Arctic, to Superstorm Sandy, to the massive typhoon in the Philippines. It was also the warmest year on record in the United States, with massive droughts and frequent wildfires."

Young people are are biggest hope and I believe (& hope) that they are increasingly starting to join the dots and question their future as indentured debt slaves.

I enjoyed your link & this guy's photo blog is very good - http://linhdinhphotos.blogspot.co.uk/ . Climate Change and its implications is particularly felt by the young and it could well be THE issue that rouses them from the apathy of their parents' generation ... or 'so long as I breathe, I hope' :)

"Hurricane Sandy, if you are poor, is the Katrina of the North. It has exposed the nation’s fragile, dilapidated and shoddy infrastructure, one that crumbles under minimal stress. It has highlighted the inability of utility companies, as well as state and federal agencies, to cope with the looming environmental disasters that because of the climate crisis will soon come in wave after wave. But, most important, it illustrates the depraved mentality of an oligarchic and corporate elite that, as conditions worsen, retreats into self-contained gated communities, guts basic services and abandons the wider population."

"This storm—amid freakish weather patterns such storms will become routine—resulted in at least $71.3 billion in property damage in New York and New Jersey. Many of the 305,000 houses in New York destroyed by Sandy will never be rebuilt. New York City says it will have to spend $800 million just to repair its roads. And that is only the start. The next hurricane season will most likely descend on the Eastern Seaboard with even greater destructive fury. A couple of more hurricanes like this one and whole sections of the coast will become uninhabitable."

"This is the new America. It is an America where economic and environmental catastrophes converge to trigger systems breakdown and collapse. It is an America divided between corporate predators and their prey. It is an America that, as things unravel, increasingly sacrifices its own."

The above three paragraphs are excerpted from your link to the excellent article by the ever insightful Chris Hedges. Thanx for that A4C & I recommend it to all readers and further to which, I also append :

'The world was supposed to be getting better. We were supposed to be becoming wealthier, more enlightened. Society was supposed to be advancing. Here I am in America, the most “advanced” nation on Earth, yet even as our financial wealth has doubled and doubled again in fifty years, we have lost wealth of a more basic form; for example, the social capital of feeling safe, feeling at home where we live. Is more security the best we can aspire to? What about a society where safety does not equal security? What about a world where no human being wields an assault rifle? What about a world where we mostly know the faces and stories of the people around us? What about a world where we know that our daily activities contribute to the healing of the biosphere and the well-being of other people? We need a Story of the People that includes all of those things – and that doesn’t feel like a fantasy.' - from your very sobering article & one from me in return - http://www.nationofchange.org/new-year-s-revolution-connecting-dots-coming-together-and-fighting-hell-1356706171 . Never Give Up Sharing News and Views - No Matter How Sobering! Occupy Reality - No Matter How Harsh! Yes, 'the truth will set you free'.

''Can we connect the dots between our primary passions and the burning issues? Can we bring together the full spectrum of the activist rainbow into a single, powerful, laser-focused movement before it's all too late? Can we reach critical mass in public consciousness and grassroots mobilization before the tipping point in greenhouse gas pollution and runaway global warming (565 billion tons of additional carbon dioxide, 450 ppm of CO2) knocks us down forever?'' from your excellent and ultra-sobering link and gosh, I hope so and thus further consider :

''A great tract of the Earth is on fire. It looks as you might imagine hell to be. The air has turned ochre: visibility in some cities has been reduced to 30 metres. Children are being prepared for evacuation in warships; already some have choked to death. Species are going up in smoke at an untold rate. It is almost certainly the greatest environmental disaster of the 21st Century – so far.

''And the media? It’s talking about the dress the Duchess of Cambridge wore to the James Bond premiere, Donald Trump’s idiocy du jour and who got eliminated from the Halloween episode of Dancing with the Stars. The great debate of the week, dominating the news across much of the world? Sausages: are they really so bad for your health?

''What I’m discussing is a barbeque on a different scale. Fire is raging across the 5000-kilometre length of Indonesia. It is surely, on any objective assessment, more important than anything else taking place today. And it shouldn’t require a columnist, writing in the middle of a newspaper, to say so. It should be on everyone’s front page.

''It is hard to convey the scale of this inferno, but here’s a comparison that might help: it is currently producing more carbon dioxide than the US economy. In three weeks the fires have released more CO2 than the annual emissions of Germany.'' from ...

Thanx for your link. From the Arctic to Tropical Forests - we're in trouble but we have the technology and wits to overcome this! Now the question is - will we? Maybe the 0.01%/1% are happy to cull most of us!

"As humans ramp-up the destruction of nature in Australia, Canada, Indonesia and elsewhere to feed the insatiable coal and petroleum markets in China, India and the U.S. the amount of melting ice at both poles continues to erode at an astounding rate."

There are some serious and disturbing graphics in this piece. Thanks for all your work on the environment, Shadz. The poor way you are treated by certain people (if you can call them that) on this forum is not unnoticed. Peace to you and yours and keep up the good work. Never give up.

''Climate skeptics in Congress, and oil and coal industry lobbyists like the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the American Coal Council (ACC) may be preventing any significant action in the US on reducing this country’s emissions of carbon into the atmosphere, but at the Pentagon, and in the executive suites of the oil industry giants, there is no doubt about the reality of climate change.

''As Admiral Robert J. Papp of the US Coast Guard wrote in 2012 in the magazine of the US Naval Institute :

“The world may seem to be growing smaller, but its seas are growing bigger—particularly in the great North, where a widening water-highway beckons both with resources and challenges.”

Admiral Papp didn’t futz around. Without any caveats or bows to corrupted scientists on the payroll of the Koch Brothers, he wrote :

“The Arctic Ocean, in the northern region of the Arctic Circle, is changing from a solid expanse of inaccessible ice fields into a growing navigable sea, attracting increased human activity and unlocking access to vast economic potential and energy resources. In the 35 years since I first saw Kotzebue, Alaska, on the Chukchi Sea as a junior officer, the sea ice has receded from the coast so much that when I returned last year the coastal area was ice-free. The shipping, oil-and-gas, and tourism industries continue to expand with the promise of opportunity and fortune in previously inaccessible areas. Experts estimate that in another 25 years the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free during the summer months.”

Thanx for your strong 'huffpo' links above & below. I'm not 'giving up' anytime soon bw and so peace and solidarity to you and yours.

"The reality, as Pentagon and the oil industry know, is that climate change is progressing with frightening rapidity. Already, sea levels along the Atlantic seaboard have risen 8-10” since the 1930s, forcing places like Miami Beach to engage in costly major projects to stave off their inevitable future as new Atlantises. According to one expert at the University of Florida, Prof. Harold Wanless, increasingly rapid ice melting on Greenland’s 2-mile-thick ice sheet, and evidence that the much larger West Antarctic ice sheet is beginning to melt, could mean a devastating 15-foot global sea rise by as early as 2100, instead of the 3-6 foot predictions that are more commonly cited (bad as those would be)." From Lindorff.

Let us not forget how completely linked up the economy is with the environment. What happens in the economy happens to the environment. A healthy economic system working for the benefit of the masses of people would work for the environment as well, as the interests of the 99% are the interests of Mother Earth.

Thanks, Shadz, for all you've done here for over two years. Your dedication to the 99% does not go unnoticed. You are a true occupier in every sense of the word. Occupy Wall Street! Never give up!

"Most ordinary people gravely underestimate our own potential to play a role in changing the world. We should follow Sawant’s shining example and commit ourselves to this cause for which there is no greater reward. Nothing in life is more meaningful than fighting alongside other working-class people to end inequality, oppression, and environmental devastation." Amen to that.

''No one ever said the battle for the rights of the 99% was gonna be easy. We live in corporate tyranny. It's a new type of tyranny, 21st-century style. How do the American people sit by and snooze while this is going on? Are they really that brainwashed ?'' from :

It is true that most Americans are waking up to the failures of the political system, but what is also true is that most Americans have a very poor understanding of economics. If they understood economics, even in a basic way, they'd understand that it is economics, and a failing economic system at that, that is underpinning our failed political system. The two work closely together. This is the message that really needs to get out to the people.

''How do we build the unified movement we need of all who suffer under our present system? What is the role of labor (some of which is on board, others not), of co-ops, of local sustainable economies, in the transition to a sustainable economy? And how do we unify all the many environmental struggles...?'' from this article which echoes your insightful comment :

"Just as “your” government and “your” prostitute media lie to you about Ukraine, Putin, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Palestine, NSA, spying, torture, 9/11, Obamacare, and literally everything under the sun, “your” government lies to you about the economy and hides from you the perilous state of your economic existence. If you are not among the One Percent, you have no future in America."

I wish I didn't agree with Roberts' quote above, but hey, the truth is the truth.

Here's one young guy's story, "My New American Dream: To Afford Medical Costs After the Student Loan Bill Is Paid":

He says, "This is the new American Dream. To be able to buy food after the other bills have been paid is now what we aspire to."

Yep, "Cash Abroad Rises $206 Billion as Apple to IBM Avoid Tax" and run away from using the profit earned on the backs of American people, for the American people, I might add. Thanks so much. Please stick your computers and phones up your asses, is my answer.

''My New American Dream : To Afford Medical Costs After the Student Loan Bill Is Paid'' - was how your hard hitting HuffPo link was entitled. Your second bloomberg.com was too infuriating for words but thanx bw for these very revealing links and in reply and in compliment, I excerpt and append for later consideration :

''The social contract and the institutions that give it meaning have been transformed into entitlements administered and colonized largely by the corporate interests and the financial elite. Policy is no longer being written by politicians accountable to the American public. Instead, policies concerning the defense budget, deregulation, health care, public transportation, job training programs, and a host of other crucial areas are now largely written by lobbyists who represent mega corporations. How else to explain the weak deregulation policies following the economic crisis of 2007 or the lack of a public option in Obama’s health care policies? Or, for that matter, the more serious retreat from any viable notion of the political imagination that “requires long-term organizing—e.g., single-payer health care, universally free public higher education and public transportation, federal guarantees of housing and income security? The liberal center has moved to the right on these issues while the left has become largely absent and ineffective.

"The left is too fractured around single political issues and needs to develop alliances in which broad based organizations can be developed with long term strategies and goals. This will not happen quickly but the foundations can be laid for new modes of organizing in which the totality of society is addressed and diverse struggles can be aligned in ways that expand their reach and political power outside of the specificity of differences that drive them. Democracy is on life support in the United States and working within the system to change it is a dead end, except for gaining short term reforms.'' .. from this wide ranging article :

Watch the PBS doc. Matt & it's worse than just ''put off social change'' ... it could well tie into Military Industrial Complex 'thinking' too. Thus - & especially with your 'No War' thread also in mind, consider :

''The debate is over. Climate change is real, and it’s probably worse than we thought. It’s time for the mainstream media to tell it like it is and stop treating wacko theories like the truth. After all, the future of all life on Earth is at stake.''

It is only human conceit and hubris which thinks that we are so very important and indispensable to this blue green marble, third planet out from an average star on the arse end of one of the spiral arms of an average sized galaxy !!! I really do agree with you though ; life will always find a way - this side of our Sun becoming a Red Giant !! More to the point right now, wtf is going on with your karma points ?! I mean if yours are frozen and you don't get an automatic '+1' too ... then how is that fair ? Also fyi :

''It is increasingly likely that hundreds of millions of people will be displaced from their homelands in the near future as a result of global warming. That is the stark warning of economist and climate change expert Lord Stern following the news last week that concentrations of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere had reached a level of 400 parts per million (ppm).

''Massive movements of people are likely to occur over the rest of the century because global temperatures are likely to rise to by up to 5C because carbon dioxide levels have risen unabated for 50 years,said Stern.'' Thanx again for your important and salutary link, which is I recommend to all readers.

It's sick that humans won't pay any attention until their own homes are gone. In the meantime and before that happens, 1/3, yes one-third, of animal species will be at risk. Remember the food chain? We may be at the top, but if we're at the top of nothing, where are we?

Excellent link Trevor. I'd never heard of 'fee-and-dividend.' But I like the sounds of it, especially if it's distributed to the citizens rather that a payroll tax reduction, since not everyone is employed, but everyone uses fossil fuels.

That was an intense read, that I did in three chunks !!! However, my memory of chunks #1&2 has faded so I may have to come back to your brain achey link again later :-)For any others readers here, give it a go but get 'aclimatised' (pun intended!) with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWInyaMWBY8 & I end with James Hansen's own words: "we had better start thinking about the Venus syndrome." Ouch !!

"A secretive funding organisation in the United States that guarantees anonymity for its billionaire donors has emerged as a major operator in the climate "counter movement" to undermine the science of global warming, The Independent has learnt.

The Donors Trust, along with its sister group Donors Capital Fund, based in Alexandria, Virginia, is funnelling millions of dollars into the effort to cast doubt on climate change without revealing the identities of its wealthy backers or that they have links to the fossil fuel industry.

However, an audit trail reveals that Donors is being indirectly supported by the American billionaire Charles Koch who, with his brother David, jointly owns a majority stake in Koch Industries, a large oil, gas and chemicals conglomerate based in Kansas.

Millions of dollars has been paid to Donors through a third-party organisation, called the Knowledge and Progress Fund, with is operated by the Koch family but does not advertise its Koch connections.

Some commentators believe that such convoluted arrangements are becoming increasingly common to shield the identity and backgrounds of the wealthy supporters of climate scepticism – some of whom have vested interests in the fossil-fuel industry.

The Knowledge and Progress Fund, whose directors include Charles Koch and his wife Liz, gave $1.25m to Donors in 2007, a further $1.25m in 2008 and $2m in 2010. It does not appear to have given money to any other group and there is no mention of the fund on the websites of Koch Industries or the Charles Koch Foundation.

The Donors Trust is a "donor advised fund", meaning that it has special status under the US tax system. People who give money receive generous tax relief and can retain greater anonymity than if they had used their own charitable foundations because, technically, they do not control how Donors spends the cash.

Anonymous private funding of global warming sceptics, who have criticised climate scientists for their lack of transparency, is becoming increasingly common. The Kochs, for instance, have overtaken the corporate funding of climate denialism by oil companies such as ExxonMobil. One such organisation, Americans for Prosperity, which was established by David Koch, claimed that the "Climategate" emails illegally hacked from the University of East Anglia in 2009 proved that global warming was the "biggest hoax the world has ever seen".

Robert Brulle, a sociologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, has estimated that over the past decade about $500m has been given to organisations devoted to undermining the science of climate change, with much of the money donated anonymously through third parties.

The trust has given money to the Competitive Enterprise Institute which is currently being sued for defamation by Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania University, an eminent climatologist, whose affidavit claims that he was accused of scientific fraud and compared to a convicted child molester.

Dr Brulle said: "We really have anonymous giving and unaccountable power being exercised here in the creation of the climate countermovement. There is no attribution, no responsibility for the actions of these foundations to the public.

"By becoming anonymous, they remove a political target. They can plausibly claim that they are not giving to these organisations, and there is no way to prove otherwise."

'The Donors Trust, along with its sister group Donors Capital Fund, based in Alexandria, Virginia, is funnelling millions of dollars into the effort to cast doubt on climate change without revealing the identities of its wealthy backers or that they have links to the fossil fuel industry.' - Enough said!

"Climate of Doubt" describes the 'Libertarian' individuals and groups behind a well organized effort to attack science by actually undermining scientists and to try to unseat politicians who say they believe there is current climate change caused by human activity. This film also investigates the funding which powers the sceptic movement in the name of free market, anti-regulation, small government causes and finds that funding has shifted away from fossil fuel companies to more ideological & less public sources.

So who are these 'free market think tanks' & 'institutes' behind this pseudo-libertarian crusade ?

'Climate Of Doubt' is a brilliant documentary exposé of Corporate Shilling and the network of corporate 'think-tanks and associations' who are out to undermine action and awareness on the matter of man made, global warming. I watched this last night with friends and thoroughly recommend it. Also see:

The last link is particularly poignant and revealing of the level of Corporate Control that is insinuating itself into campuses everywhere, in an effort to influence, divert and subvert the future generations.

Never Give Up Resisting The Oligarchs! Occupy The Occupiers! Solidarity.

I would highly recommend PBS' "Climate Of Doubt" to all readers & thanx for these great links. The final article is extremely interesting & I thoroughly recommend it to all forum readers. Resistance Is Fertile !!!

'Resistance Is Fertile'! Yes indeed, to - 'Corprocrisy: The Systematic Betrayal of American Workers' - http://www.nationofchange.org/corpocrisy-systematic-betrayal-american-workers-1359988966 from which - 'Free market idealists argue that capitalism works for anyone with a little initiative and a willingness to work hard. That might be true if job opportunities were available to everyone. But the facts reveal a lack of opportunity, largely because the very system of capitalism that's supposed to work for everyone is betraying its most productive members. It's a step-by-step process of hypocrisy disguised as free enterprise'. Never Give Up Resisting! Occupying Is Fertile! Solidarity.

The facts reveal a lack of opportunity, largely because the very system of capitalism that’s supposed to 'work for everyone' is actually betraying its most productive members. Thanx for another excellent article and excerpt, further to which (and still in keeping with this forum-post, I'd like to think), I also append :

"More than 3/4 of retired Americans ended up working longer than they initially planned because they didn’t want to lose access to their employer-based health benefits. And a majority of the Americans who are currently in the workforce are also planning to delay their retirement in order to keep the insurance plans they have through their employer". Taken from your linked article and this is a very important matter and particularly pertinent as I just read this article :

From the first link : "The bipartisans in Washington are currently focused on Social Security and Medicare - not to improve health care and retirement, but to cut them. There is constant, exaggerated "sky is falling" deficit commentary about purported out-of-control spending caused by these programs, while the real twin crises of poverty retirement and health insecurity are ignored. Popular solutions to these crises exist that would strengthen Social Security and Medicare and spur economic recovery." I believe that this is an article all engaged Americans of whatever age, should read - even if it is a li'l off topic to the subject matter of this particular forum-post ;-)

'The arguments that we must cut all federal spending have come packaged in the myth that Americans have been spending more than they have to. The truth however is that American means have not been keeping up with the growth of the economy. Wages have only increased 30% where as the economy has almost doubled. This is why most of us need better healthcare, education and stronger safety nets. The only people whose means have soared are at the top.' - from - http://www.nationofchange.org/myth-americans-living-beyond-their-means-1360253410 . Thanks for those killer links and it was worth going off-topic from the subject of your post here. Never Give Up Exposing The Smoke & Mirrors! Go Occupy!

'By extending the Bush tax cuts for all but the top 2 percent of Americans and repealing the alternative minimum tax, that deal increased budget deficits by about $3 trillion above what the budget office projected last August.

The real deficit problem comes after that — when rising healthcare costs combined with 76 million decaying boomers will cost us all a fortune.

The answer is to move from fee-for-service health care to pay-for-healthy-outcomes, including lots of preventive care. This will almost certainly require a single payer instead of our balkanized healthcare system drowning in paperwork as each part of it bills and tries to collect from every other part.

Right now the central challenge is to reignite the economy — getting jobs back, improving wages, and restoring growth.

Deficit reduction moves us in the opposite direction. That’s because most consumers (whose spending is 70 percent of economic activity) are still losing ground, and businesses won’t expand and hire without more consumers.'

Never Give Up Showing The Clear Truths! Occupy The Real Issues! Solidarity.

''The upward march of the world’s average temperature since 1891 is a trademark of human-influenced global warming with 2014 being the latest stop on the climb. All 10 of the hottest years have come since 1998.'' (Sad Sigh) & as an aside ...

Notice they seem unsure of whether to go with the Dems or the Reps. Sort of what jart was saying about corporations. They're not really political in terms of choosing a candidate from a certain party or with a certain viewpoint. They're more about what's best for me, me, me. Who cares about ideology? as long as all the politicians work for me, me,me, the corporation. Pretty sickening. It's time to kick them out of office...

"Passing 400ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is indeed a landmark and the rate of increase is faster than ever and shows no sign of abating due to a lack of political committment to address the urgent issue of climate change - the world is now most likely committed to an increase in surface temperature of 3C-5C compared to pre-industrial times." (Prof. Professor Bob Watson, former IPCC chair and UK government chief scientific adviser) from :

"About 57 percent of plants and 34 percent of animal species were likely to lose more than half the area with a climate suited to them by the 2080s if nothing was done to limit emissions from power plants, factories and vehicles, they wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change."

"But the scientists said governments could reduce the projected habitat loss by 60 percent if global greenhouse gas emissions peaked by 2016 and then fell. A peak by 2030 would cut losses by 40 percent."

This is serious stuff. Thank god some young people have decided to forego profit making to study things like conservation biology. Maybe it is not too late to mitigate the damage.

Sad that so many look for any kind of distraction possible to avoid facing reality. Well to bad for them as things are getting so that anywhere/everywhere they look it is looking back at them. It is becoming impossible to ignore that bad shit is happening - and - IT WILL AFFECT THEM!!!

Thanks - made a nice tweet. But as I agree we need to reduce our CO level I think it would have been better stated - as - we need to move forward and shed pollution tech of the last century in all of it's forms.

Climate milestone is a moment of symbolic significance on road of idiocy | George Monbiot http://gu.com/p/3fmkt/tw via @guardian

Well 'flea', I'm an ant but I think that IF we can hook up with the bees and wasps and enough of us can get our sh*t together - together - at the same time, then we can bite 'the elephant' in strategic places and drive it off. Together We Are Stronger and thanx for your very interesting replies. I'd encourage any of your words re. mulching, composting etc. and I express my gratitude and solidarity to you, with :

It just struck me that I might be an ant also. . . . After all I am doing several things to improve our environment and help others to do the same. . . I will post on composting in the very near future.

Yea, I know the argument about junk costing less than good foods but what most folks don't know is that when the body gets good foods with actual nutrition in it not as much is required. If you were able to look up what your body required for vitamins, minerals, and protein and enzymes every day and cost that out in fresh foods I think you would be surprised just how inexpensive it would be. Just for instance if you offered the kid a kiwi and 2 oz of mixed nuts and water instead of a 12 oz can of pop, candy bar, which one do you think costs more? Now which one would stay with the kid longer and provide more nutrition?

You end with good rhetorical questions and your knowledge, expertise and information are very welcome here on these threads.Solidarity to you & I append the following article for your interest and information :

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and 'The Creators Syndicate'. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following [ http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/ ].

Maybe I should give you a little background. My most important driver is health. From that I have pursued the study of food, exercise, and gardening. As an offshoot of gardening because of organic foods I looked into natural bug control and fertilizing and that led me to worms, and composting. That is the chain of subject matter that I have pursued in an effort to maintain my health after retirement. In the process of learning all this stuff I do a lot of researching to prove or disprove certain things I have read. Believe it or not many of the things we read are theories or just plan speculations or embellishments to sell a product. Imagine that!! I have always believed we should learn throughout life. Continuous learning has been my life process. I have a library and now a digital library on different subjects. My wife and I have been married since 1966. I take no medications and have no diseases or limitations. I still climb trees and deer hunt with a bow, skin the deer and prep the meat myself. Im old school and believe in taking personal responsibility for your life and asking for help from your family and friends if you need it. Ive read the bible a couple of times and pay heed to the wisdom of Jesus. WOWWW . . that's a bit much huh? Kind of got on a rant there.
Any way that's what Ive been focused on since before my retirement. I watched my father die of a heart attach when he was 44 years old and that started my interest in health.

Ironic that Jennifer Aniston was made famous by 'Friends' yet seems to have none ! Such is the 'reality' of style over substance and appearance over actuality, me thinx !! All goes to show, that love and life is much more than haircut and hubris !!!

I think the focus of climate change is on the wrong cause. The earth's climate will always change by natural cycles, however, it is the deforestation of the rain forests that have caused an imbalance. Vegetation thrives on carbon dioxide and gives off oxygen as it's by-product. Instead of drumming up a carbon tax hoax by hypocrits that will fall on consumers and will do nothing to stop any real causes of imbalance, we should be making noise to do more to stop the deforestation of the rain forests which are the most important element of our eco-system. Some places in Brazil have had success with using the rain forest for good use rather than burning it down for grazing and farmland as they had been doing for a very long time. There are rain forests all over the globe that have been in the process of destruction for many decades. It is only recently that people are being made aware of it and trying to reverse it. This is where focus needs to be. Carbon dioxide is not poison. It is one of the essential components to plant life. The plant life in turn provides us with oxygen to breathe.

We can also work to plant trees wherever possible elsewhere on the globe. In North America we've lost so many trees for decades to suburban sprawl and industrial and commercial complexes. We've gotten better at replacing trees taken down in recent years but there is never enough plant regrowth to compensate for what damage was already done.

Why is no one thinking logically instead of listening to politicians come up with yet another scam to hold power over us, tax us and take more of our liberty. A carbon tax?...give me a break. Meanwhile these bureaucrats screaming for this like Al Gore are flying around in their private jets and living in their huge power sucking mansions doing more so-called damage while asking the rest of us to pay for their hypocrisy. They figure they'll just charge people money and never fix what the real problem is. Maybe get a Nobel prize in the process. Get smart and work with people that are really doing something. And if nothing else, plant a tree.

There is alas, a rather overwhelming international scientific agreement in the actuality of rising temperatures. Even if the US Govt. wishes not to accept or acknowledge the science of major US scientific institutions, such as The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute ( http://www.whoi.edu/ ) or The Scripps Institute of Oceanography ( http://sio.ucsd.edu/ ) etc., internationally the scientists have known for well over a decade that 'something' is afoot.

'Mother Nature' has locked away VAST amounts of Ancient Carbon in the form of peat, coal, oil and gas. We know that there is a Carbon Cycle just as there is a Water Cycle, but that the time scale of the Carbon Cycle (which includes Geological processes) is much, much longer than in the case of water (simplified here to : evaporation, condensation, precipitation & run off).

Therefore, how can we as a sentient species, consider that we can bypass the Carbon Cycle and extract huge amounts of carbon based fuels, burn them and almost instantly (in geological time) return this carbon to the atmosphere Without There Being Any Repercussions ?! What is our individual and collective intuition on this matter ?!! That Carbon Dioxide even tho' it is essential to life via photo-synthesis, is also a 'Greenhouse Gas' is undeniable. The Greenhouse Effect is well understood and without it life on this planet would not exist. We owe our previously relatively stable climate to this and the level of CO2 has been pretty stable at ~ 300ppm (0.03%) for a very, very long time (verifiable from ice and lake sediment cores). However, that proportion has risen in the last 40 years to ~390ppm (0.039%) which is a 30% increase in CO2 levels.

Further, both water vapour and methane are also greenhouse gases and the level of both will also rise with rising global temperatures. This is termed 'positive feedback'. A Human Influenced and possible 'run away' Greenhouse Effect is empirically, scientifically and mathematically possible, so the question is do we accept or 'believe' that it is happening ?

The atmosphere is but a film above us like cling-film on a water melon. It's easy to assume that we can have no effect on the vastness of the atmosphere but this is not true. As the atmosphere warms, the dynamic and apparently chaotic but actually relatively ordered 'Climate System', has 'more energy' and will operate at a higher energetic level and with a higher 'water carrying' capacity. Thus, 'The Climate' will be seemingly more chaotic to our perception. We are already witnessing weather records being taken to new levels throughout the world and this matter is not really up for debate - unless there is an evil, truly vast international conspiracy of scientists at many levels !

Globally, as a species we can feel and detect that 'something is changing', that something is different now to how things were but we may choose to behave like the proverbial 'frog slowly boiling in a pan of water on a stove' &/or as a 'rabbit caught in a bright light' !!

Sadly, I don't really think that we will stop either our behaviour or its results in the short or even medium terms. It's now a question of adaptation, however consider this : That "The International 'Darksider-Sith' Ruling Elites" [translation : 'Parasites' !] actually do NOT mind countless hundreds of millions of the rest of us perishing if it means more for them and Less Of Us !!!

The above is compounded by 'Militant Pro-Industrialism' as well as by Religious Nutters - who IF they do have belief in 'Biblical End Times' (ie some Jews, Christians and Muslims !!!) do not think human action can possibly affect The Earth's Climate as only 'God' could do that AND when compounded by the ignorant, those in denial and those who know but just don't give a shit ... well, we have quite a recipe for forthcoming perturbations, to say the least !!

.

Thanx for your comment 'SingleVoice' and here's hoping that together, with a shift up in consciousness - we can be, a 'SV' ~*~

The "something that is changing" is the balance between animal and plant life on this planet. The repercussion of carbon returned to the air is to be used by the vegetation on the planet. The destruction of the rain forests over the past many decades is why we have an overabundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The rain forests have always been the key element of earth's balance in every regard. The destruction is what has caused all of the imbalance we have been seeing.

The behavior that needs to change is to stop removing the earth's natural carbon dioxide combatant...trees. Methane and carbon dioxide are natural by-products of living organisms. The removal and destruction of the natural filter for those things is vegetation which need carbon dioxide to survive. Vegetation needs carbon dioxide and vegetation's by-product is the oxygen we need to survive. It's so simple yet gov'ts around the world try to make it appear as though carbon dioxide is a poison not a source of life for plants. The rain forests were the balance to it all but now that they have been and are still being destroyed is why we're seeing increased imbalance in the atmosphere. What could be more simple than promoting more planting of trees wherever possible and to put more effort into helping countries trying to stop deforestation of the rain forests where they exist. This is the main cause of climate change.

Even people that believe that human action can't affect the earth's climate can maybe agree with this because it's logical and makes sense and you can argue with them that God put the trees here for this purpose and that man is removing them at an alarming rate for man's purpose and is therefore causing the imbalance.

Focus should be on saving the rain forests and planting many more trees than are removed everywhere, everyday on the planet not on using gov't power to scam people out of money for "carbon credits". What does that do? Absolutely nothing but line the pockets of regulators and gov'ts and give them more control over our lives. These same people calling for carbon taxes are hypocrites and keep perpetuating lies to gain power and control over people while they themselves don't live what they preach.

Most important, by replacing what's been removed in the way of trees, we can overcome the effects. It's not hopeless and can be attained in a relatively short period of time as long as more people on the earth realize that this IS the solution. We need to make this the fight not the bullshit we're being fed by global gov'ts including our own.

I have bamboo growing all over my backyard. The one thing about bamboo, it keeps reproducing very fast throughout the whole growing season. It spreads like a weed but produces a beautiful tall screen. Every plant will grow and produce oxygen which will use carbon dioxide and help to re-balance the atmosphere. The more we plant, the more we help. Also, any one that can help the groups working against the deforestation of the rain forests whether financially or with their time will also make a difference.

'The destruction of the rain forests over the past many decades is why we have an overabundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The rain forests have always been the key element of earth's balance in every regard. The destruction is what has caused all of the imbalance we have been seeing.'

Industrialization, change of land usage, filling in of wet lands, paving, agribus farming, massive population increase.... are why we have an imbalance. While the rain forests are an important sink for CO2 and should be preserved, the oceans are a far greater sink for fixing CO2.

We'll have to see past, through & around mere 'money' - if we are to see and embrace our future. The 'Market' is The Problem and the constant pursuit of merely short term profit, is now an impediment to human progress and environmental sustainability. It does not have to be so. Money is Not any law of nature like say gravity and the tides ; it is a creation of our culture.

"The democratization of the energy sector is not only seen as a goal in itself, but also as a means to achieve an ecologically viable relation to the environment. The proposed law therefore also bans any new investments in nuclear and coal-fired plants. Instead, investments will be put into decentralized renewable energy production as well as public energy saving programs. To secure socially just provision of energy, the company is not allowed to cut anyone off from the grid under any circumstances."

"Such referendum initiatives are a great way for Berlin’s social movements to work together and make progress on a single issue. Crucially, local legislation for referenda is relatively favorable. Berlin state law forces a general vote if any organization hands in 200.000 valid signatures in a city of 3.5 million inhabitants. Gathering such numbers of signatures is a lot of work, but the effort for the referendum on water privatization has proved those targets can be met by a committed coalition of activists and organizations working together."

The above is taken from your strong link, further to which - in keeping with this thread, I also append :

Wow. Not that is a bit encouraging. I KNOW the many protests/marches I've been to in NY have delayed the fracking decision, The documentaries have informed/outraged many. The many petitions DO make a difference.

The fact that The Corporations are fearful of "Highly Effective Campaigns" is very cool and a real source of some hope for the rest of us. Thanx dude for your kind concern. Real life and time constraints have taken precedence lately but I'm still reading and linking when I can. In solidarity, here's one for you :

"The planet Earth is not created or built by the Nation States claiming membership at the UN. The comprehensive system of splendid and encompassed Universe and its resources on the planet Earth are God-given gift to mankind, and its violation and exploitation will be checked by God as it happened to many in the past only to be found as artifacts in museums and history books. History offers a learning role but nations and people denying the role of history ultimately cannot escape the wrath of history. Winning the wars was not part of the American aims and strategies but killing and destabilizing the poor nation was, and it has achieved that aim. All actions have reactions. The consequences are yet to come."

Australia has a tax on CO2. Despite a lot of scare-mongering on the part of the opposition politicians, not a lot has changed, though I do see the price of generating electricity rising, which will be passed on to the consumer.

Now you go to far. If I have to get an attorney involved Im done. I just wanted to make a suggestion that I was hoping someone would run with and I would get a reduced electric bill out of. Come on . . where are the activists? Someone run with this ball!!! I need my electric bill reduced or at least a new more efficient air conditioner. . . .

Not at all sure what the NRA or guns has to do with this forum-post topic but it does give me an opportunity to voice a thought re. a possible deep psychic reason for US gun fixation !!!

However, to get my drift, you'd have to engage with : http://occupywallst.org/forum/kill-anything-that-moves/ & then cogitate over my point, which is that - Vets Know What Went Down Abroad & The Atrocities That They Were Party To ... so, it has entered the deep psyche & the 'collective subconscious' of the nation that such horrors are possible !!

To get my line of thinking here, you'll have to read LeoYo's forum-posted article but I should warn you - it really is rather a brain jolting read !

I just had this link on my clipboard and threw on the most inappropriate reply I could find, cuz I thought you needed a laugh. No harm, no foul.

I'm a very quick study and turn on a dime, so I don't need prep.

I have written extensively on the topic of guns and I surprised myself with one really good sentence, and now I'm ruined for anybody else on the topic, including myself. Wish I could find it. That's my only complaint about this forum, no personal account that stores your posts and replies. I put stuff on here and never see it again. And the "search" feature is a fucking joke! But apparently the piece on guns was so great it blew DK's mind (probable stretch), he read it and then he disappeared.

A few people get killed in Libya and the ridiculous Right goes (and stays) bananas, 20 kids get slaughtered at school and they pooh pooh it. To me, that's reason enough to ban all guns unconditionally.

Re. the "search" box, enter any forum poster's moniker and their last 50 forum-posts will come up and enter any subject and again, relevant forum-pots will come up but it's too much to expect that this 'open-source' system can pull up and aggregate any individual's comments. Bookmark anything you need to.

Chill and don't take it personally, lol. Try putting : user:WSmith - into the search box and see what you get ! Use "user:" & then posters' moniker and you'll get the last 50 forum-post list. Put any word or phrase in the search box and relevant forum-posts will come up. Good luck.

Though I'd say 'nay' (neigh), some folk have no 'beef' with horse-meat so long as it's labelled correctly !!! 'Greed' knows no limits sadly and excessive, intensive cattle farming has some huge repercussions for our environment and atmosphere too.

Your doctor is like all the rest and has no idea what he is talking about! The topic of flesh eating was on my mind and here it is. I am telling you true IT IS SURE DEATH! You are what you eat and not any doctor can change that fact. While the colony within people eating flesh has them convinced they need eat it, this because that colony of parasites needs to be fed. It is not the person in need of meat. If Jesus ever made a pleading statement it was about not eating death in sacrifice for his Father, stop doing it. From my perspective all conversing with people choosing death is a waste of time because it is simple to see that they will not understand where I am coming from and that is so okay knowing that I choose to live and they will not understand under spell of what lives off them.

Sprouts of all sorts can deliver all the necessary nutrients in one foot square counter space. The sprouts have as much or more of vitamins/minerals as the grown foods. I am all for more fun-gi in all ways we need this and if you are a guy a little fun and it's on Good going! Lovin' you In solidarity for Worldwide FREEDOM...

My fave sprouts are chickpea, which are so sweet once sprouted they could be classed as a lolly. When a seed germinates, the starch converts to sugars, and the vitamin C content rises about six hundred percent.

A much better way to consume grains of any kind. Hell, even beer is made from sprouts (malt). That shuts up my mates who say sprouting is for hippies.

Re. US Forests : "The federal government has spent about $1 billion a year in recent years combating wildfires. Last year was the warmest on record in the lower 48 states and saw 9.2 million acres burned, the third-highest on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website. Insect infestations widely blamed on warming temperatures have killed tens of millions of acres of trees."- from your interesting link and many thanx for that and am appending this article in return :

"Considering the threats of climate change, war, and disease, only an idiot – or a fossil-fuel billionaire like Charles or David Koch – would want us to bring in more oil with a pipeline or take any other steps to continue America's dependence on dirty and costly last-century fuels.", from :

Consider, "big business" is actually inherently opposed to sustainable power because in reality that would, should & could tend towards 'free power for all' & so how'd they 'sell' it to their share-holders ?!

'Free and sustainable and renewable and abundant' are actually antithetical to Corporate Crapitalism which thrives on faux scarcity in the midst of actual abundance in its blind pursuit of purely private profit.

"While a move towards renewable energy by Australia’s economy certainly won’t fix global warming on its own, it’s a step in the right direction, away from the rash of heat waves and wildfires—worsened by the climate change driven by fossil fuels’ carbon emissions—that have recently slammed the nation." - extracted from your excellent link, however more soberingly, I append in reply the following :

Signs of a new future are visible everywhere, from China to the US and from Europe to Thailand. Green mobility powered by sustainable energy, clean drinking water for all thanks to nanotechnology, dyeing textiles using recycled CO2 etc.

All of this is possible and is happening successfully now ! Working together with "Cleantech" founder Nick Parker, this film shows what our world will possibly be like in the decades to come.

"Clean tech" is code for "I haven't learned my lesson yet".
We have too much technology right now, not too little. First you have to learn to be responsible with it, then you build new stuff. "Clean tech" has a monstrous energy footprint, and the replacement of all "dirty" tech with "clean" tech will cause probably more damage to the environment than it prevents.

Join the fight by begging our masters? Fuck that. If you people really wanted to stop climate change, you would reduce your energy use, and get others to do the same. Signing a piece of paper means you are not serious.

Maybe for dumb little causes like internet censorship laws that could actually pass with no consequence in reality (because their proposed measures are technically impossible/prohibitively expensive) they work.

But climate change is something we've known about since the 70s, and something that has been not only ignored, but actively denied by an organized, multi-million dollar effort. A petition is not going to do fuck in stopping climate change, and because of the nature of the problem, one that almost everyone is inherently detached from, those feelings of having done something are amplified in this case. Just like people who drive Priuses or buy carbon offsets, whatever miniscule help you've provided doesn't make up for the fact that you're probably not going to do the stuff that actually does fight climate change, like moving out of the suburbs, not using a car, becoming a vegan, and growing your own food.

I'm not spending a lot of energy on stopping petitioning. I wrote one short message about it.

You are the one acting childish, calling me a moron multiple times in every post, making assumptions about me that you have no business making, and following the recent comments so you can downvote my posts, regardless of their content.

Not only that, you talk about how negative I am, when I'm the one advocating positive direct action, and you're the one crying about what a negative, anti-activist moron I am, how I'm stupid and uneducated, how I'm a moron and an anti-activist, how I'm full of anger, how I'm a moron and an anti-activist, how I do a disservice to everything I'm involved in, how I'm a moron and an anti-activist, how I can't prove the things I said (which I can, by the way), and how the best "gateway" to activism is for people to type their name in a form on the interbutts to politely ask their glorious leaders to fix their problems for them.

Very few people can grow their own food in any appreciable amount. Millions of people have signed petitions and been added to mailing lists that are been used to create support for other issues, For raising money for more important issues/actions. Even the growing food movement can benefit by joining coalitions that can share their mailing lists to further your food growing plan.

Groups that gather many petition names are empowered to agitate for their given issue. The more names they gather the more leverage they have, the more petitions we sign, the more groups get more leverage.

You do not add to the success of your movement because you are filled with anger, spew hateful negativism, and are woefully uninformed.

You do a disservice to anything you get involved in with that level of pessimism. You are the anti-activist.

I'm woefully uneducated? That's funny, because I'm actually on a research team for another activist movement, have been invited to speak in a global consortium for sustainable societies, have a tremendous research library of relevant information, spend the entirety of my free time studying ecological and economic issues, and am generally regarded as someone who knows what the fuck he's talking about.

It seems that it's only when I get on this board that I get called an idiot and a moron, and dismissed out of hand by people who don't actually care to read or discuss anything I say. I'm filled with anger because shitheads like you respond in exactly this way to everything I write, and have dumb little groupies that upvote your posts and downvote mine.

You don't even know anything about me, other than I hate petitions. I do a disservice to anything I get involved in? That's a pretty sweeping generalization there, which I don't see any justification for making. Hey, but I'm sure it's going to score you lots of "cool points" on the boards here.

Only the unenlightened thinks the right way to encourage more activism is by insulting the gateway actions.

We must encourage EVERY effort small and large. Small efforts WILL grow into larger efforts. That is the most valuable element of small efforts. We lose that possibility when morons like you are putting down those small efforts.

But that is what you want right? You just want to shut down any actions.

I can make a lot more people give a fuck about growing their own food than I can about signing some stupid fucking petition that's not going to do anything.

Petitions aren't a good gateway action because they're not effective and people either forget about signing or lose interest over time because nothing's happened.

Permaculture food farming not only ACTIVELY REDUCES ATMOSPHERIC CO2, unlike signing an online petition which uses huge amounts of energy, it RESULTS IN SOMETHING PHYSICAL that encourages people to keep doing it. Best of all, unlike signing an online petition on the privacy of your dumb little screen, people that AREN'T ALREADY ON YOUR SIDE SEE WHAT YOU'VE DONE and may change themselves for the better.

You have NO ARGUMENT here. Enjoy having your hoardes of dumb little friends follow you around downrating your opponents.

The Department of the Interior has announced that they are reevaluating Shell’s Arctic drilling permits after a series of mishaps throughout last year — culminating with one of its drillship running aground in late December — prevented the company from drilling as planned.

Shell’s failure was six years and $4.5 billion in the making and only confirmed what experts have been saying all along — that drilling for oil in the Arctic will never be safe. Now it seems that Secretary Salazar and the government might be coming to the same conclusion.

This is our chance to stop Shell from drilling in the Arctic all together in 2013. Call Secretary of the Interior Salazar’s office now and tell him to cancel Shell’s drilling permits. Everything you need to make the call is below.

Step 1) Call (202) 208-7351. If it's between the hours of 9am and 5pm EST you should be able to talk to a person. If you aren't calling between those hours and don't speak to a person, skip step #2 and simply leave the message below.

Step 2) The phone will be answered by a staff person in Secretary Salazar's office. Tell them your name, city and state you are calling from, and then tell the staffer you are calling to leave a message with Secretary Salazar about Shell's permits to drill in the Arctic. You will then be asked if you would like to use the Interior Department's comment line, politely say no, and say that you would prefer leaving your comment with the staff person you are speaking with so that he/she can give that message to the Secretary directly.

Step 3) Leave your message. Here's a sample:

"Hi, my name is _, I live in [city, state], and I want Secretary Salazar to revoke Shell’s permits to drill for oil in the Arctic waters off the coast of Alaska"
Step 4) Last, let us know that you made the call by clicking the button below.

I made the call

All this year we’re going to continue our campaign to stop Shell from drilling in the Arctic and to declare the high Arctic a global sanctuary off limits to industrialization. This is a huge moment in that campaign and your support is critical.

Thank you 'Iman'! Everyone here can pick up the phone and make this call. This could, and maybe should be a stand alone thread in the main 'Forum Post'. It is a simple action, that sends a cogent message to the powers that be. Even people outside of the U.S. should make this call to let them know that the world is watching. Thanks again.

Yes. "The truth hurts" those who would rather we we remained ignorant, with our heads in the sand and our asses in the air but these Corporate Shills and their stinkling lickspittles on this forum will only drive us to renewed efforts for a 'bw' fit for all. Thus, further to your excellent and highly recommended link - in due course, please also consider :

"Toxic fracking fluid routinely spills during transport. Wells can accidentally communicate underground, leading to a blowout of fracking fluids through one well as they are pumped through another."

"Fracking fluids and gas can migrate into the water table and contaminate the water supply. Methane in the water supply is believed to be the cause of spontaneous house fires. The injection of fracking waste into storage wells causes earthquakes. Open pools that store fracking waste can rupture and leak into waterways. Pipelines that carry the natural gas can rupture and leak or catch fire."

"...among the chemicals known to be used in fracking, one third are known carcinogens and others are neurotoxins and reproductive toxicants which sabotage pregnancy and interfere with hormones. But this isn't the whole of it: the fluids that go down the wells also return to the surface carrying heavy metals, radiation, radon and organic compounds from the shale with them. Radon causes lung cancer, and benzene, an organic compound, causes leukemia. As Steingraber describes it, these substances are not a threat when they are locked deep in the ground, but fracking is "fracturing the lid on Pandora's Box."

"Returning carbon money straight to the people – rather than turning it into windfall profits for corporations or tax revenue for government – also features in a new bill introduced this month by Senators Bernie Sanders (Ind-VT) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), which would levy a carbon fee and recycle 60% of the money to the public." - excerpted from :

I append the above article because it is highly relevant to the forum-posted article and to this thread, if not as directly to your reply above but thank you for the very relevant excerpts re. 'Fracking Fluids' - an aspect of Fracking which TPTB are rather desperate to conceal. Just how stupid has one got to be to poison our water and land so that we can release ancient hydro-carbons, that Nature has sequestered and stored away, straight back into the atmosphere - purely in pursuit of Short Term Private Profit ? To answer my own rhetorical question in the style of your answer to Chomsky ... ummm .. very !!

"The political appeal of these proposals goes beyond protecting family incomes. They also face up to a fundamental moral question: Who are the rightful owners of the environment? Who should be paid for the privilege of using it, subject to limits we set to safeguard it for future generations?"

With changing to alternative power sources and dumping fossil fuel (if it all happened today) - these states are gonna have to do something anyway for a very long time to supply needed water. Open sources are dwindling.

"As permafrost covers 24% of the land surface of the Northern Hemisphere, significant thawing could affect vast areas and release (billions of tonnes) of carbon. This has huge implications for ecosystems in the region, and for aspects of the human environment." said Dr Anton Vaks from the University of Oxford and extracted from your excellent link. So, please also calmly consider that :

"Conspiracies against the public don't get much uglier than this. As The Guardian revealed last week ....

.. two secretive organisations working for US billionaires have spent $118m to ensure that no action is taken to prevent manmade climate change. While inflicting untold suffering on the world's people, their funders have used these opaque structures to ensure that their identities are never exposed."

"The two organisations - "The Donors' Trust" and "The Donors' Capital Fund" - were set up as political funding channels for people handing over $1m or more. They have financed 102 organisations which either dismiss climate science or downplay the need to take action. The large number of recipients creates the impression of many independent voices challenging climate science. These groups, working through the media, mobilising gullible voters and lobbying politicians, helped to derail Obama's cap and trade bill and the climate talks at Copenhagen. Now they're seeking to prevent the US president from trying again."

I excerpt the above in reply to you bw, from the following highly recommended article :

I have a very big problem with undemocratic, secretive, corporate, right-wing 'Libertopian' types like the Donor's Trust [ http://donorstrust.org/ ] & as to the 'why?' - well it's all very well encapsulated in :

Which describes the 'Libertarian' individuals and groups behind a well organized effort to attack science by actually undermining scientists & to try to unseat politicians - who say they believe there is current climate change caused by human activity.

This excellent doc. film also investigates the funding which powers the sceptic movement in the name of free market, anti-regulation, small government causes and finds that funding has shifted away now from the fossil fuel companies to more ideological and less public sources.

Thanx for your gracious comment mate. Btw you know what they say about pedestals right ? They are only good for falling off ! You shine 'O' - good luck and good wishes to you and yours in all your doings.

"The secretive funding channel known as the Donors Trust patronised a host of conservative causes.

"But climate was at the top of the list. By 2010, Donors Trust had distributed $118m to 102 thinktanks or action groups which have a record of denying the existence of a human factor in climate change, or opposing environmental regulations.

"Recipients included some of the best-known thinktanks on the right. The American Enterprise Institute, which is closely connected to the Republican party establishment and has a large staff of scholars, received more than $17m in untraceable donations over the years, the record show.

"But relatively obscure organisations did not go overlooked. The Heartland Institute, virtually unknown outside the small world of climate politics, received $13.5m from the Donors Trust.

"Americans for Prosperity, the Tea Party group seen as the strike force of the conservative oil billionaire Koch Brothers, received $11m since 2002."

So yes - I think that $118M is enough money to serve their intentions, Matt & they'll spend much more !!

These are dangerous times for our planet. Science can point the way to solutions.

But truth-twisting pundits like Rush Limbaugh, anti-science "think tanks," and members of Congress who choose to distort science to confuse the public are doing their best to stall efforts to get our country moving in the right direction.

Our campaigns to stand up for science cannot move forward without members like you. Our special online matching gift offer expires soon. We haven't heard from you yet—and we need to count you in if we're going to move forward.

Need a reason to fight for science and make a gift today? I've got five for you:

Reason #1:
Fox News says Global Warming Over
Because some of the most popular news outlets in the country mislead their audiences on climate science. For instance, that's Fox News running the headline "Global Warming Over."1 UCS research revealed that a whopping 93% of their climate change coverage is misleading or blatantly false. This is who gives millions of Americans their news. Match my gift >>

Reason #2: Because the impacts of climate change—increased coastal flooding, more severe heat waves, and more frequent episodes of severe weather—are real and are happening now. Your donation can go towards UCS's efforts to help communities use science to be prepared. Match my gift >>

Reason #3: Because wind and solar energy are ready to power America's future if we can get politicians to invest in them. That's why UCS is working to convince states to implement reliable, clean, renewable energy solutions now. Match my gift >>

Reason #4: Because the Farm Bill is stalled in Congress, and we urgently need to make sure the final bill begins to steer our tax dollars away from heavy subsidies for processed foods, and towards more support for the healthy foods our experts say we need. Match my gift >>

Reason #5: Because objective and independent analysis are so important to these efforts. Individuals like you, along with independent philanthropic foundations, provide nearly all of our funding and help ensure that our research and conclusions are authoritative and driven only by what the science says. Match my gift today >>

No matter why you support the Union of Concerned Scientists, know that you're making a smart investment. UCS has received Charity Navigator's esteemed 4-star rating for the last six straight years—an honor shared by only 3 percent of charities.

The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.

In just a few days, more than 18,000 of us have called on CNBC to stop spreading climate denial and start reporting the facts! In response, CNBC's worst climate denier, Squawk Box host Joe Kernen, lashed out on Twitter at Forecast the Facts members, writing "pathetic. sheep" and and doubting that the climate could change in just 150 years. To see Joe's tweets for yourself, click here.

Tell CNBC no airtime for Climate Hot AirHowever we felt about the content of President Obama's speech on climate, we can all agree it was newsworthy. Yet CNBC was the only cable network that refused to run even one minute of the president’s major climate change speech!

Sadly, this is just the latest in a long line of bad climate reporting by CNBC. A recent Media Matters study found that More than half of CNBC's climate science coverage has cast doubt on climate science since the beginning of 2013.* This kind of biased, unscientific reporting inaccurately tells people that there is disagreement about climate change's reality, and its impacts.

It is outrageous that any news network would refuse to cover climate change news**. Real progress is improbable as long as mainstream outlets like CNBC are denying climate science, and they won't change until viewers speak out.

Since January, the network has featured a parade of climate deniers like William Happer, who chairs the fossil-fuel funded George C. Marshall Institute and wrote “how little correlation warming has with concentrations of carbon dioxide”, host Larry Kudlow*, who says that "climate change is not man-made” and could be caused by the sun, and contributor Rick Santelli who calls climate change a “myth”. Tinfoil hats not included.

An American president announcing major climate plans is big news for the planet, and all of us who live on it. The speech had some positive elements, like a plan to regulate emissions from power plants, and real problems—like a continued embrace of a climate-destroying all-of-the-above energy policy. But the fact that a major business network like CNBC didn’t even see fit to run the speech is a sign of how our media outlets are abdicating their responsibility on the most vital issue of our day.

We can change that, and CNBC is a great place to start. Right-wing outlets like Fox News have long given up on even the semblance of honest journalism. But CNBC remains a legitimate journalistic outlet under the banner of NBC, the network of Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert and sister network to the more progressive MSNBC. They have a reputation to uphold, and climate change denial is a stain on that reputation.

There’s only one thing will force CNBC to change its tune: a massive outcry from everyday folks like us who refuse to stand for one more day of climate denial.

U R Right ! Green works but the fight against it is political spin and is lead by dinosaur energy industries that buy our government. I have limited means, but I did manage to install a solar preheat water tank in my house. It's not much, but it's a start. We have to change the culture and take the attitude " Your not a real man unless you produce your own power".

I'm recommending A4C's links above and below. + re. Our Climate & Environment - It is still NOT too late !!! We can as a species arrest and if not reverse, then adapt !! I have hope, but I'm not naive ! Ergo :

Australia's govt imposed a carbon tax of $24 per tonne, and despite the oppositions' scare tactics regarding radical price increases across the board for everything, I've yet to see a single common commodity (electricity supply aside) that has effectively risen since the imposition of a carbon tax.

Low-income Australians have received financial assistance to cover any potential increases in costs for power, etc.

And of course here in the good old US the rotten Big Fossil and RW political stooges declared war on Green thinking!! Raygun's noble removal of solar panels from the WH was an applauded victory. And the masses just said "Somebody hand me a cheeseburger" and a frosty can of Buttwiper!

I thought it might all be a scam to extract yet more money from the working and middle classes by the oligarchs.

But, I'm seeing daily the radical changes in our weather patterns, and I'm pretty sure you guys and gals would be too.

It might take a bit more physical destruction to convince the nay-sayers, but as George Carlin said several years ago, "If it takes massive destruction and extensive death to wake up the sleeping giant (America), then bring it on."

I lived in Southern California and witnessed Smog so bad that we could not see across the street, daily Smog alerts, then oil spills from the pumps that line the coast and wiped out the beeches, then DDT, then nightly Fruit Fly spraying. When Earth Day came along, we thought what took so long!? Still wondering.

Climate change should not be the reason/cause, it's too easy a target for exceptions. Pollution is the way to go. No more death and destruction, I say we just ram it through, the Neanderthals and Big Fossils will NEVER get it.

Understanding the Fiscal Cliff (In 2 Minutes and 30 Seconds)
Robert Reich (In a better world, one where people made United demands, RR would anchor a daily Network News show.)

Published: Tuesday 4 December 2012

Democrats, here are eight principles to guide you in the coming showdown over the fiscal cliff: Continued: 1-10 of the original Dem strategy when this deal was made last year as a counter measure to the RepubliCon Budget Hostage Crisis, which resulted in the T-Potty Down Grade. But 1%-owned Cons don't mention ANY of this, favoring the "sky is falling" fear factor, and the 1%-owned MSM follows suit. Thank Darwin the Partisan Cons didn't Occupy the WH!!

BACK TO MY POINT: Let's use this phony spending controversy to address the giant expensive elephant in the room: "the HUGE indirect costs, that we have to pay, for Big Fossil to do business. Like pollution, wars, MIC, healthcare, etc...

They will never be credible and, as descendants of the Flat Earth believers, they never were. Whether or not they are credible, you can be credible and wrong, is not the issue. The issue is that these wrongheaded, backward-thinking and closed-minded idiots are in our Government!!!

'RW dunderheads' have been in control of our country since JFK & Clinton was just their most human face, lol. 'Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, claims in "Why Poverty" that “there are many bought politicians in Washington.” The present day merchants and traders - the hedge fund managers, brokers, CEO’s of major corporations - are bought by the rich, such as David and Charles Koch. Estimated to be worth $62 billion, they have donated funds to over half the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives and ploughed millions of dollars into 230 university colleges to promote courses, which support their ‘free’ market ideology. A ‘free’ market, in name only, skewed off, which they and their cronies have overwhelming control.' - taken from the excellent article - http://www.nationofchange.org/inequality-and-poverty-america-style-1354976402 .

Yes, it's not a black and white world. And as a result of our pathetic participation in our great democracy, we have well intended politicians with no popular support who are forced to turn to money donors to stay in the game. We, through our obscene negligence, caused this corrupt state of affairs in our government. And Big$ LOVES it!!! But the overwhelming proliferation of man-made climate change detractors are GOPers who are a Cult whose Charlie Manson is the 1%. Know your enemy or you will squander your cause and efforts!

No! When you say 'as a result of our pathetic participation in our great democracy, we have well intended politicians with no popular support who are forced to turn to money donors to stay in the game.' - that is an inversion of reality, imho and what pray tell, is so 'great' about our democracy?!

The politicians took the money, they sold us out, we see through their venal b.s. - so we desert them! Don't put the cart before the horse and start blaming the victims for their oppression. The people didn't desert the politicians first - they deserted us and opted for the ca$h! GOPers are beyond the pale and Dems, for the most part are duplicitous scum too.

Denis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders are the exceptions who prove the rule and we'll watch Elizabeth Warren now, with interest. The Corporations co-opt and control our govt. and this has to change but don't blame the dispossessed, disenfranchised and demoralised people of our country for the state of our 'democracy'. Apathy Is The Enemy & perhaps we can agree on that! Go Occupy!

If you fail to put oil in a Lamborghini and engine problems result, it's still a great car, it just needs maintenance to keep it running great. We have such a great democracy, that despite CU, Voter suppression, and RW biased media, we dodged a dirty bomb with Mit and Ryan.

So, Yes! We have rendered a great democracy to it's currently pathetic state, but it's so great it withstood all that the RW-1%-GOP could throw at it. It is further a testament to the Greatness of our democracy that it remains strong despite our massive neglect and naive denigration. A democracy is only as strong as its participation, it's not a spectators sport.

Don't generalize! The GOP is flat owned by Big$, there are DINOs or Blue Dogs who are fake Dems and really just RepubliCons. And there are Dems who are neglected by their "unreliable" base who have to take money to stay in politics, because Big$ has snatched up the democracy we have forsaken. We need to take it back, take it away from Big$ with our superior participation. Democracy and the politicians it puts in office serves those who show up. We have the lowest Voter turnout, Big$ has the highest! We abandoned our democracy, Big$ just picked it up and, without Votes, monetized it. Our fault, Big$ can't help being scumbags! That's what they do! What's a politician to do?? give up and let them rape and pillage at will?? Or take their money and live to fight another day? The money buys influence and propagandized Votes. If we just Voted as a civic duty, this would not be the problem you blindly wail about!!!

Sanders and Kucinich both support many other Dems and NO Cons!!! Corporations cannot co-opt what we occupy, that's why they have had free will with our government. Occupy democracy!! Occupy Government!! Occupy the Media!! Occupy the Vote!!!

We currently ''occupy' duopoly, but you seem far too comfortable with that for my taste, but as you say - 'We have such a great democracy...', then perhaps I should not be too surprised at that. Sanders and Kucinich support those things which they believe is better for the 99% and we need many more like them. Yes, Occupy Democracy and The Vote! but...Let Us Give Up Corporate Controlled Duopoly!

So? - share circulate all of the good information that you come across here with a link back to here. I urge everyone to do this. If you have accounts already - then take advantage of using the social media links on the left side of your screen. Comments will already show-up in a google search for information - even if the search does not request OWS specific information. The more that people copy or tweet or e-mail or otherwise forward information from this site - the faster and wider the distribution becomes.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1769) 0 minutes ago

Just like the Cons will never die because they are not of the living, TPTB will never downfall because they're so rich they can't, but they may have stand-ins stage a downfall if it helps them evade justice and soothes the unwashed masses.

And as nice as this board is, its relevance in the grand scheme of the American body politic is just a smidgen above nil. We have to spread and propagate and promote the site.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

I tweet and facefuck links to here, OWS; got a whole lot of new posters over the debates and election. How or what does it do when you hit Tweet here, and before or after you hit save? Aha: It Tweets the OP/Thread/Post not reply!

Just like the Cons will never die because they are not of the living, TPTB will never downfall because they're so rich they can't, but they may have stand-ins stage a downfall if it helps them evade justice and soothes the unwashed masses.

And as nice as this board is, its relevance in the grand scheme of the American body politic is just a smidgen above nil. We have to spread and propagate and promote the site.

The war on unions a free press and whistle-blowers is a further extension
of the corpoRAT program to rule.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1762) 0 minutes ago

I think Chief Justice Roberts' head should roll over this, two rotten birds with one impeachment. I just wish Obama had stepped off the podium and bitch slapped Roberts when he smugly sat there and said "NO" when Obama called the crime what it was. (Now they don't attend, which I believe is a, telling, first!!)

I've signed that petition and all it's incarnations months and years ago as they have popped up, since the travesty was perpetrated.

I'm more concerned with the war against Unions and Progressive Media!!
↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

True - communications are essential - and we must support efforts to protect our internet. The Move To Amend Campaign has made some very good progress in this last year and it is close to a critical mass in the push for success - and that success could be huge in addressing other roadblocks.

The success for Move to Amend may be that 1st step in breaking the back of corpoRAT rule.

I think Chief Justice Roberts' head should roll over this, two rotten birds with one impeachment. I just wish Obama had stepped off the podium and bitch slapped Roberts when he smugly sat there and said "NO" when Obama called the crime what it was. (Now they don't attend, which I believe is a, telling, first!!)

I've signed that petition and all it's incarnations months and years ago as they have popped up, since the travesty was perpetrated.

I'm more concerned with the war against Unions and Progressive Media!!

Thank you for calling on CNBC to stop spreading climate denial and start reporting the facts! Over 27,000 people have signed on so far. And on Friday, Joe Kernen attacked us on his show, saying those who acknowledge climate change are “enviro-socialists” in a “bona fide cult”.

This campaign is exactly what Forecast the Facts is about: empowering Americans to hold public figures accountable for climate denial. CNBC can’t be considered a legitimate news source while one of their hosts calls climate science a "cult." But Kernen’s statements alone aren’t going to discredit CNBC. We need more great folks like you to stand up for accurate climate information.

Can you help reach our goal of 30,000 signatures by forwarding the email below to 5 of your friends?

On Tuesday, CNBC was the only cable network that refused to run even one minute of the President’s major climate change speech. Sadly, this is just the latest example of the network's egregious climate reporting. A recent Media Matters study found that over half of CNBC's climate science coverage has cast doubt on climate science since the beginning of 2013.

This is the kind of climate coverage we expect from Fox News, not a subsidiary of NBC.

In the wake of the president's speech, it's a crucial time to show that Americans urgently support regulations to reduce carbon pollution, and that we won't stand for climate change denial on mainstream outlets like CNBC.

If enough viewers speak out, we can force CNBC to change its tune, or risk a major hit to its journalistic credibility. That's why we are joining with our allies at Environmental Action to demand CNBC end its climate denial immediately.

Since January, CNBC has featured a parade of climate deniers like Joe Kernen, co-host of Squawk Box, who compared climate scientists to "high priests" whose work should not be trusted; William Happer, who chairs the fossil-fuel funded George C. Marshall Institute and wrote “how little correlation warming has with concentrations of carbon dioxide”; host Larry Kudlow, who says that "climate change is not man-made” and could be caused by the sun; and contributor Rick Santelli who refers to climate change as a “myth”.

Tuesday was a major day in the history of the United States, as President Obama unveiled his second term climate plans. The speech had some positive elements, like a plan to regulate emissions from power plants, and real problems—like a continued embrace of the climate-destroying all-of-the-above energy policy. But the fact that a major business network like CNBC didn’t even see fit to run the speech, and continues to deny the basic reality of climate change, is a sign of how far our country is from the political consensus on the need for action.

We can change that, and CNBC is a great place to start. Right-wing outlets like Fox News have long given up the semblance of honest journalism. But CNBC remains a legitimate journalistic outlet under the banner of NBCUniversal. NBC is the network of journalistic legends like Tom Brokaw, Tim Russert, and David Brinkley. They have a reputation to uphold, and climate change denial is a stain on that reputation.

But there's only one thing that will force CNBC to change its tune: a massive outcry from everyday folks like us who refuse to stand for one more day of climate denial.

Forecast the Facts is a grassroots organization that empowers people to fight climate change denial and promote accurate information about the climate crisis. You can follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Help us end climate denial once and for all by contributing here.

Added to the letter: "Pull your heads out of the sand - take a good long look at REALITY. 97% of Climate Scientist's ARE NOT WRONG."

Just two weeks ago, President Obama delivered a landmark speech where he outlined what his administration will do to make good on his promise to place climate change at the top of his second-term agenda. It was a call to action for his administration and for the nation, but he also reminded us that the Senate has a part to play:

"The woman that I've chosen to head up the EPA, Gina McCarthy, she's worked -- (applause) -- she's terrific. Gina has worked for the EPA in my administration, but she's also worked for five Republican governors. She's got a long track record of working with industry and business leaders to forge common-sense solutions. Unfortunately, she's being held up in the Senate... The Senate should confirm her without any further obstruction or delay."

The cornerstone of the president's climate plan is a new set of EPA safeguards against climate-disrupting carbon emissions from coal plants. The best way to make sure those protections are put into place quickly is to make sure the EPA is fully staffed and ready to get to work.

And that's not all. The EPA is also considering historic protections against coal waste in our water, along with other safeguards to protect our air, water, and communities from big polluters. They'll also advise the president as he decides whether or not to approve the dangerous Keystone XL pipeline.

It's a lot to take on, but with her long track record and results-oriented approach, there's no doubt that Gina McCarthy can hit the ground running. She's ready to shoulder these responsibilities. Are your senators ready to shoulder theirs?

P.S. Six letters are better than one. Forward a copy of this message to five of your friends and family and let them know how they can help confirm a clean-air champion. Or spread the word on social media with the share buttons below.

Some climate deniers deserve a tin foil hat for their nuttiness. Oklahoma Rep. Jim Bridenstine, on the other hand, needs a tin foil Snuggie.

Jim_Bridenstine_EM.pngLast week, the Republican rookie rep gave a speech on the House floor demanding President Obama apologize to his constituents for funding research on climate change.*

This -- despite the fact that 97 percent of all scientific studies on climate change conclude that the earth is getting hotter -- and faster -- than it would due to normal climate cycles . . . that the increase is thanks to man-made carbon emissions from energy and industrial production . . . and that unless we make serious cuts to these emissions right away we will see disastrous climate consequences worldwide this century that will be irreversible for more than a thousand years.

Scientists are panicking, which is not their nature, because they've spent two decades warning us that global warming is happening and will have dire consequences, yet the world's elected leaders have done almost nothing about it. Just six years ago, a worldwide conference on climate change made a range of predictions about temperature increases and the impact on sea levels, and today scientists are saying that our collective inaction has turned their worst-case scenarios from 2007 into the most likely scenario.

So what is that scenario? A six degree Celsius average increase in temperatures worldwide, a melting of almost all global sea ice and glaciers, and a sea level rise as high as 7 metres, spawning larger and more frequent hurricanes and extreme weather in places not used to seeing such events.

It's likely that Bridenstine is too busy being wined and dined by fossil fuel lobbyists to actually read any of the science, and it is probable that he could care less what the scientists have to say. Which is why he was able to say this with a straight face on the House floor Tuesday: “Even climate change alarmists admit the number of hurricanes hitting the U.S. and the number of tornado touchdowns have been on a slow decline for over 100 years."

Uh, no. In fact that is the exact opposite of what scientists are saying. For example, Tom Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, says this: “What we can say with confidence is that heavy and extreme precipitation events often associated with thunderstorms and convection are increasing and have been linked to human-induced changes in atmospheric composition.”

In a survey of 29,000 scientists published this year, less than 1 percent denied that humans were the primary cause of climate change.

Despite all these fact, Bridenstine thinks Obama should apologize for spending money on research into what scientists say will change life for every living creature on the planet in ways that make Superstorm Sandy and the Oklahoma tornado look tame.

The Obama administration just released its first major fracking policy--the Bureau of Land Management’s proposed rules for fracking on 600 million acres of public land. And it’s even worse than we feared.1

In a major concession to the fracking industry and its lobbying efforts, the proposed rules are even weaker than previous drafts of the rules.2 3 And they do nothing to close Dick Cheney’s infamous “Halliburton loophole,” which exempts fracking from key parts of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act.4

Of course, it’s become clear that there is simply no safe way to frack. So even worse than the specific concessions made to industry in the draft regulations is the assumption that fracking should be allowed to continue on federal lands despite overwhelming evidence that it endangers our air, water and climate.

The BLM is accepting public comments on its proposed fracking rules for 30 days. We need to let the administration know that these rules are totally inadequate. The administration needs to ban fracking on public lands – not cave to the industry and endanger our health and safety.

An area of federal land larger than the entire state of Florida is currently under lease for oil and gas extraction, so this is one of the most important fracking policy decisions the Obama administration will make.5

Unfortuanately, every indication is that the White House is still putting the interests of oil and gas companies before the health and safety of American communities. The proposed regulations let the industry keep secret the toxic chemicals it injects underground by designating them as "trade secrets" without oversight from the BLM. The rules allow the industry to store contaminated waste in massive open pits, which can release dangerous air emissions and leak toxins into groundwater. And the rules do nothing to prevent the industry from fracking wells right next to homes and schools.

And of course, the harm fracking does to local communities is compounded by its significant contribution to the climate crisis.6 As the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere passes 400 parts per million--well beyond what many scientists say is safe--the Obama administration should be working to keep its promise to confront climate change, not encouraging the extraction of vast new reserves of dirty oil and gas.

To Continue May I add: Fossil Fuel is destroying our environment - poisoning our air, land and water. The poisons released are causing disease and death - cancer is sky rocketing in the population - and fossil fuel has caused it's share. It is also destroying our climate = Global Warming Climate Change = Turbulent weather - Storms rain and snow - tornadoes - floods - and drought.

The President says he agrees with the climate science scientist's - That We have to stop using/burning fossil fuel. The climate scientists say we are at a point in the pollution level and the earth's warming that the process could go out of all control - we have next to none for control now - only thing we can do - is to stop polluting and let the atmosphere slowly recover. The scientists say we are about to set off a chain reaction - where our stopping pollution will not matter as the earth will finish the job.

Now considering what science is telling us and the president saying that he believes the science.

What is the president doing - opening up more land for fossil fuel extraction?

It is INSANE. 1st of all We do not need it ( we are in a glut ). Besides having alternative technology Clean/Green technology for Power generation - heating - cooling - to power industry as well as for taking care of All our transportation needs on land sea and air.

We also are currently in a market GLUT situation for fossil fuel. We do not need more at this time. It is being exported - for profit - not need - notice also - we have so much right now that they "fossil fuel" is exporting - but the cost to the consumer keeps going up - does that not defy economics? But that last is still irrelevant as we can not continue using fossil fuel. Science Tells Us - The President agrees and also Tells us.

So why is more land being opened up to extract fossil fuel? It is killing us with poisons already - poisons in the Air Land and Water - add in the fact that the global warming process is about to go out of control. ASK YOURSELF - Why are we continuing to go after what is not needed going after it for profit purposes only. When it has already been declared that we can not continue doing this.

Get real - stop fracking now - seriously commit to implementing alternative energy - CLEAN ENERGY - Spend stimulus money there - NOW - and get people back to work while saving the planet.

''McKibben’s army has thrown its non-violent troops against the Keystone XL Pipeline and tar sands exploitation that will devastate an area in Alberta the size of Florida. This project has been called a massive body blow to the Planet Earth by NASA’s climate scientist James Hansen, who has been arrested several times in the protests.

''Obama approving the pipeline makes it happen. While promising collateral offsets by Obama is nothing more than the Obamamania of hope. We know how far hope travelled since Obama became president and never had to worry about political competitors on the ballot, including third parties, attracting votes to environmental and other progressive causes. There are lessons that McKibben may have to explain to his 350.org followers.'' & thanx for your highly relevant, excellent but troubling link.

He said most of the recent warming had been absorbed by the oceans but this would change as the seas heat up. The thermal expansion of the oceans is one of the main factors behind current and projected sea level rises.

This week the Sierra Club launched its Future Fleet campaign to clean up corporate vehicle fleets, starting with PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, and Dr Pepper Snapple Group, which together own and operate more than 100,000 vehicles.

Oil use accounts for more than 40 percent of our climate-disrupting pollution, and the biggest customers for oil are large companies guzzling huge amounts of fuel -- including oil from tar sands refineries. By getting these three corporate fleets to prioritize fuel efficiency and get off of tar sands oil, we can reduce the demand for oil, curb emissions, increase transportation choices, and slow the development of tar sands.

Yep climate "change", is happening. Just like it has for the past 4 billion years. But don't worry folks. Liberals know how to control Earths temperature. Just give them 100 years and a trillion dollars

Keep bumping my threads & I'll keep adding relevant links - hence thanx for your reactionary, reflexive and retarded response. Why the defence of 'Nazi Boy' ? Are you one and the same ? So - you find my "ideology and opinions" offensive, do you ? Really ?! So - WTF are you doing here, you stupid cunt ?!! 'Offensive' enough for you ?!!!

It will be noted by readers that you totally fail to disassociate yourself from 'Nazi Boy' ! Are you and s/he one and the same ?!! Good luck re. extracting your certainly empty head, from your probably fat (..x..) !!!

You're spewing 'brain farts' NOT commenting, numbnuts !!! "Comprehension issues" ?!! Also it is not so "irrelevant" that you can ignore it though is it - shit-for-brains ?! Are you representating the intellect level of 'denialists' ? If you can read, digest and think at the same time, try :

"Money" is a figment of our collective imagination - the only true cost of something is 'opportunity cost', time, effort and materiel. Money should only ever be a 'means of exchange' - NOT an end in itself !!!

The thing about burying your head in the sand is that it leaves (x) in the air, so expect reality to come along to kick it, sometime soon. If you had any evidence to back up your position - such as it is - you'd have posted at least one link I'd have thought.

Conservatives would seek to 'conserve' and protect our environment and climate we may think, given the word but nope - 'Con' by name ; Big Con by nature ; Conned by design !!! Further, please also consider :

I think it's more than how they use their brains. When social instinct is subverted to indidual gain, we may be dealing with a different subspecies. They don't seem to understand that all wealth production requires a healthy community. By thinking only of themselves, they're self destructive and to dumb to know they're on a dead end thread of evolution.

I hope the rest of us wake up before the trolls take us down with them.

"Ban Ki-Moon, the secretary-general of the United Nations has stated that the world is in a race against time against climate change. The COP18 UN Summit in Doha will conclude on Friday, giving the delegates two more days to agree on targets for cutting carbon emissions. The UN says climate change will cost developing countries up to $67 billion each year by 2030."

Knuckle dragging trolls and their troglodyte kind should simply stick to the darker recesses of the cavernous caves of their own mind but their 'dog in the manger' spite is deeply engrained. Fk 'em ! Solidarity !! Onwards and Upwards !!!

I appreciate your full and frank confession !!! With candour like that, you'll go far !! Now try some of the links and good luck with deprogramming yourself and losing your preconceptions ! You could do far worse than some of the links on this thread. Good luck with your continuing 'self-re-education' ~{:-)

"Rapid action before 2020 means far lower costs – less than one percent of global GDP when spread over a number of years. Delay means far higher costs and dubious strategies like massive biofuel plantations, more nuclear plants, and as yet unproven large-scale carbon capture and storage."

"Delay means dumping the enormous costs of action or the even larger costs from climate impacts on the next generation – our children and grandchildren”

New knowledge of the way in which the destruction of the Arctic sea ice affects northern Europe and North America suggests that this is no longer true. A paper published earlier this year in 'Geophysical Research Letters', shows that Arctic warming is likely to be responsible for the extremes weather events now hammering these once temperate regions.

from which : "Ban Ki-Moon, the secretary-general of the United Nations has stated that the world is in a race against time against climate change. The COP18 UN Summit in Doha will conclude on Friday, giving the delegates two more days to agree on targets for cutting carbon emissions. The UN says climate change will cost developing countries up to $67 billion each year by 2030."

The fact that the Economy and the Environment are inextricably linked is clearly outside the capacity of Modern Industrial and High Finance Crapitalism with its extremely limited, restrictive and I would argue - 'enslaving' ideas behind 'Double Entry Book-keeping', to 'account' for. All of the 'Externalities' need to be 'internalised' and accounted for. Perhaps we actually need to envisage a 'new Triple Entry Book-keeping' system in future, with ''Debit, Credit & Socio-Economic / Environmental Factors". Just thinking out loud.

"The Arctic has been warming about twice as fast as the rest of the Northern Hemisphere, due to a combination of human emissions of greenhouse gases and unique feedbacks built into the Arctic climate system.

The jet stream, the study says, is becoming “wavier,” with steeper troughs and higher ridges. Weather systems are progressing more slowly, raising the chances for long-duration extreme events, like droughts, floods, and heat waves."

This is science telling us this. Are we going to listen? The polar bear will not be the only species affected. We humans will be affected.

That "costs are not always financial" is very true and indeed, perhaps the concepts of 'Opportunity Cost' and 'Accounting for Externalities' really need for us to see beyond mere man-made money. Our shallow obsession as a species with the abstraction of 'money', is now a serious impediment to the survival of the species and health of the biosphere.

How we value things has to change and indeed, our whole 'value system' needs turning on its head, as the numbers you quote show so well. Thanx for that great link and re. 'Triple Entry Accounting', I append an oft quoted monograph on the matter, tho' I am still to try to digest it and tie it in with some developing thoughts of ''Debit, Credit & Socio-Economic / Environmental Factors" :

Interesting that you have been down-voted. What for? For saying that there are financial as well as other costs to treating the environment poorly?

I am almost finished reading "A Short History of Progress" by Ronald Wright. In this book he shows how, when civilizations become too greedy and lose sight of the resources they need for the future, they fail. They literally kill themselves by consuming the resources that they need to survive to the point of no return. We are not that far off from being in this situation now.

Re. "Short History of Progress", by Ronald Wright, indeed this book has been turned into an excellent 2011 documentary - which I watched earlier this year, called 'Surviving Progress', with as I recall, had Martin Scorsese and Mark Achbar ('The Corporation') connected to it. Your arresting comment, though portentous, has much value and is well worth more than a moment's quite reflection, I think.

The book even has a wiki { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Short_History_of_Progress } and sounds extremely interesting. Thanx for your comment and heads up on that, which I'm taking as a genuine recommendation and re. the "down voting", well that's a wee price to pay for 'truth telling' no doubt.

Thanks for the link to "A Short History of Progress." I encourage everyone to read this short book that covers world history with a focus on the environment and not really politics or economics, though they are all related and do interplay.

and many thanks for your excellent link, which I recommend to all readers.

From your link : "Sea ice reflects more than 90 percent of the sun's heat off the Earth, but when it is replaced by the darker open ocean, more than half of the heat is absorbed into the water" - this is called 'The Albedo Effect' and is another thing that so many Anthropomorphic Climate Change Deniers & The Hired Corporate Shills seem so ignorant of. I do hope to get to read "A Short History of Progress", one day soon, as your recommendation is effusive and enthusing.

"Indeed, the function of the transnational corporation is not to promote a healthy ecology but to extract as much marketable value out of the natural world as possible even if it means treating the environment like a septic tank." But, as Parenti says "Don’t wealthy reactionaries and their corporate lobbyists inhabit the same polluted planet as everyone else, eat the same chemicalized food, and breathe the same toxified air?"

Thanx for the recommendation & I'll be getting that book in the new year I think. I actually owned a copy once but gave it away to my better half before I fully read it because I that thought she would appreciate it better and I'm actually very glad I did really. Without digressing further, your excerpted comment and the rhetorical question therein, got me to thinking that an actual answer to that quandary may lay here :

Great point! LOL! "Our nation's responses to the climate crisis, the federal deficit, our economic stagnation and many of our other serious challenges are still being held hostage by people who manifest a detachment from reality as profound as that of schizophrenics."

A very deep seated sense of, entitlement, pseudo-superiority and abject disdain for their fellow human beings, characterises the 0.01% and I'm coming to believe that The International 'Darksider-Sith' Ruling Elites - [translation : 'Parasites' !] actually do NOT mind countless hundreds of millions of the rest of us perishing if it means more for them and less of us !

From the article : "We are still allowing a powerful elite, who behave like psychopaths, to steer our government towards protecting their interests at the expense of everyone else. The greatest threat to the United States will never be Al Qaeda, Russia, China or Iran. It will be our failure to wrest control of public policy from the inmates of our own insane asylum."

This is why change is coming. The system currently in place is going to self-destruct and is already beginning to. All of the turbulence we are feeling right now in our societies and in our economic and political systems is the beginnings of watershed historical change. A shift is going to occur away from the fallout of the Industrial Revolution and the capitalism and nationalism that came with that to something that will work better with the technological change and globalization that has taken over. We simply cannot go on like this, with the parasites ruling the roost and running off with all the cash and raping and pillaging the earth. That is the old way of doing things and it just doesn't work anymore, and has become so deleterious that it will self-destruct.

That is why they are insane assholes = "Don’t wealthy reactionaries and their corporate lobbyists inhabit the same polluted planet as everyone else, eat the same chemicalized food, and breathe the same toxified air?"

It's a little concerning that these huge multi national corps are a the center of some of the needed energy progress. But the truth is, infrastruture upgrades, e meters, even wind turbines & some battery tech will have to include big corps.

"This data comes from a new survey out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by human activity.

The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is "very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century."

Do you understand what you just read?

97% of 1,372 scientists surveyed IS NOT THE SAME THING AS 97% of ALL scientists. Do you have any idea what the number of all scientists IS? Does the number 1,372 correlate as an accurate "survey sample" of the total?

And "very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century." IS NOT THE SAME THING AS "believes that climate change is driven by humans".

There's a reason scientists use specific terms and words rather than wild generalizations. It's usually because they want YOU to understand exactly what they ARE saying, so you don't interpret is as something they are NOT saying.

That cheat sheet....wasn't produced by a scientist. It wasn't approved by climate scientists. It used cherry picked data and statements that are a disservice to real scientists and the general public. And you call it "very nice".

Now address what those scientists actually AGREED on. They agreed that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are "very likely" responsible for "most" of the unequivocal warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century". PERIOD.

Really? -6 in 1 hour? For posting a NY Times article about global temperature increases? Trolls, rot in hell. That is where you will find yourselves, you heartless, unfeeling, uncaring, sick psychopathic excuses for human beings.

yah I had a post railing against the Keystone XL where I got negative 5 on every comment I made. And that was after many of them were originally plus. The trolls love making multiple accounts to try and change the way it looks like the forum views certain topics.

They never justify it with a response either... instead they hide behind their downvotes like cowards.

Exactly right. And, any economic system that tells human beings, "nah, you don't need a living f'ing wage, go rot," is a sick sick system and one that needs to be changed. Wake up people! It doesn't have to be like this.

We can start off with 'crony' or 'unfettered' captalism, and let people decide from there, which is the sojourn that I took

The labor movement in this country in the early 20th century had tons of commies, and socialists in it

Reformers and radicals have a long history of working well together in this country

By having these 'radicals', we ended up getting much more than we would have without them in the New Deal

I've heard it said, the assault on the 99% began the day after the New Deal was signed into law

And all this though is probably what gave McCarthy some of the traction he needed in his fear campaign, as they were then able not only to start building the MID, but simultaneously they started to crush unions

The answer is that the economic system of capitalism has become embedded in the brains of Americans in the same way that the sun rises and sets everyday. They think it is some kind of organic outgrowth, that we must live with it like we live with the soil and the trees we see day in and day out. But, it's not, it's man made, and it's fallible and it's not working. It's become antiquated. It was a result of the Protestant Reformation and the Industrial Revolution, but we now live in an age of technological revolution and globalization and we need an new economic system to work for the masses of people whose survival depends on it.

People here just vote for their friends and down vote their "enemies". Very few people vote for ideas. If usernames were hidden for a day, the points would change completely. Anyhow, even if everyone were to vote for ideas, it would still be an argumentum ad populum. The most popular ideas are not necessarily the best ones. For that reason, points are absolutely useless.

"In agreeing to the self-policing system, members of the industry said they realized they needed to do more to reassure the public about the safety of fracking. On the other side, environmentalists said they came to the conclusion that the hundreds of billions of dollars in oil and gas underground is going to be extracted one way or another and that working with the industry is the quickest path to making the process safer."

I haven't heard about this, but thanks. I also think it sucks. It's the weak left again or total lack thereof in the U.S.

We better start paying attention. I am reading a book right now "A Short History of Progress" and the author writes about how major climatic change can and has occurred over the span of just one short decade. So, what are we waiting for?

Exactly - what I am afraid of - and it is a very real possibility that no one is really putting forward yet ( and I think due to the resistance to the facts of global warming - and worry about getting denounced ) - is that we could see major changes in the environment within a very short period of time - due to synergistic effects of the rapid thawing we are experiencing.

There are predictions of lost coastline by the end of the century and ongoing into the next century - it is possible that we could see rapidly rising ocean levels long before the end of the century.

This does not take into account the increasing frequency of monster storms either.

Change should have been made in our operation ( industry and transportation ) when I was a child in grade school and was learning about pollution for the 1st time.

Climate change is happening faster then predicted and I think the rate of change will continue to accelerate.

Yep - very quickly - like pretty much over night. It is why I will never stop advocating for immediate and profound change to our infrastructure to our industries to our Housing. We have got to stop extracting and burning fossil fuel.

Environment America plans to film a short documentary on the health hazards of fracking for Breakthroughs, a public television series directed by Martin Sheen. This show on average reaches 60 million viewers in all 50 states (that's almost one in every five Americans!). With that kind of audience, we can truly show Americans the truth behind the gas and oil industry's false advertising: the pollution, the illnesses, and the costs to people like you.

The thing is, we need your help with this project. We've already raised $50,000, but we need $10,000 more to fund this documentary. Can you chip in $10, $30, or $100 today?

Each donation is one more step on the way to discrediting the fracking industry's PR campaign and protecting our water and our health. Just think of it as a personal "No fracking way!" note to the oil and gas industry.

ACTION ALERT
Urge the EPA to Finalize Strong Tier 3 Standards by the End of This Year

The oil industry and its allies in Congress are working hard to stop the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed rule to cut tailpipe emissions from our cars and sulfur from gasoline (known as Tier 3 standards).

These standards will prevent thousands of asthma cases and millions of lost school and work days each year, and the benefits will be immediate when Tier 3 takes effect. The oil industry knows they cannot win an argument about the substance of a rule with such clear and cost-effective public health benefits, so they continue to work to delay the regulatory process.

Reducing vehicle pollution and bringing cleaner gasoline to the pump is a no-brainer. Automakers, who are stepping up to the plate to build more fuel efficient vehicles, are clamoring for cleaner fuel. Public health and consumer advocates are lauding the Tier 3 program's benefits, and state clean air officials know that reducing sulfur and tailpipe pollution is the most cost-effective way to meet federal clean air goals.

Don't let the oil industry and its allies stand in the way. The EPA needs to hear from the millions of Americans like you who want cleaner fuel and cars that pollute less.

Rachel Cohen
National Field Organizer
Clean Vehicles Program
Union of Concerned Scientists

The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.

I added:

You heard the presidents speech - it is time to push past the deniers of global warming/climate change.

Every year Congress hands out about $4 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to Big Oil, which is the most profitable and most environmentally destructive industry on the planet. Yet, the House and Senate are struggling to find a way to keep college student loan rates from doubling on July 1, because they cannot figure out a way to raise the $4 billion needed to avert the increase.*

oilsubstuitionrates2.pngCongress is working to prevent the student loan rate from doubling on July 1, but so far the Republicans and Democrats in Congress have been unable to forge a deal. They're considering a range of options, but so far no agreements have been made. And in one week, every student in America will have to pay more money for the same education.

The solution is really much more simple — cut the wasteful and harmful subsidies to the oil industry, which doesn't need the money and uses it to further harm the planet by increasing global warming pollution.** Please sign our petition today asking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to end the Big Oil Billion Dollar Bailout and keep college affordable.

My plan is a win-win situation. Giving subsidies to Big Oil is steals from our childrens' future by creating a harsh environment with warmer temperatures, extreme weather, whole species lost forever, and cities and communities destroyed by sea level rise on a scale we've not experienced.

On the other hand, keeping college loan rates low gives our kids a better chance at a higher education. Heck, maybe one of these kids will go to college, major in climate science and then figure out a way out of this global climate mess. Certainly, more people with a higher education should at least create a generation of potential senators and representatives who won't have as much problem with simple math.

Yep, "cut the wasteful and harmful subsidies to the oil industry, which doesn't need the money and uses it to further harm the planet by increasing global warming pollution.'' !! Thanx for the excellent links & further to your 'Student Loan Link' and tho' at a bit of a tangent to this thread, I append :

IF SO = President Obama is set to announce his plan this week to address the growing threat of climate change.

Then He better drop all of the bullshit about opening up more land for fracking and for oil drilling. As the fossil fuel industry is exporting - these resources are not needed for domestic use - they are only needed for fossil fuel profits. At the expense of our environment - in direct conflict with saving our environment - in direct conflict with stopping global warming.

So - TELL HIM to CUT the SHIT and get down to real business of clean tech green tech power generation and transportation and industry.

OR save the crap propaganda for any newborns who live long enough to hear it for the 1st time.

President Obama is set to announce his plan this week to address the growing threat of climate change.

We'll know more specifics on Tuesday, but it's expected he'll offer a bold, national approach to reducing carbon pollution -- and lay out a vision to lead global efforts to fight climate change.

The powerful, well-financed forces who still deny the science behind climate change aren't going to like this -- and they'll be fighting this progress every step of the way. In fact, before he's even seen the plan, House Speaker John Boehner is calling it "absolutely crazy."

That's why President Obama is calling on all of us -- anyone who believes that climate change is a threat -- to join him in taking action right now.

A movement of millions elected President Obama. Let's keep fighting for change. Chip in $5 or more to support Organizing for Action today.

Paid for by Organizing for Action

Contributions or gifts to Organizing for Action are not tax deductible.

This email was sent to: dka01@live.com.
If that is not your preferred email address, you can update your information here. We believe that emails are a vital way to stay in direct contact with supporters. Click here if you'd like to unsubscribe from these messages.
Organizing for Action, P.O. Box 66732 Washington, D.C. 20035

IF SO = President Obama is set to announce his plan this week to address the growing threat of climate change.

Then He better drop all of the bullshit about opening up more land for fracking and for oil drilling. As the fossil fuel industry is exporting - these resources are not needed for domestic use - they are only needed for fossil fuel profits. At the expense of our environment - in direct conflict with saving our environment - in direct conflict with stopping global warming.

So - TELL HIM to CUT the SHIT and get down to real business of clean tech green tech power generation and transportation and industry.

OR save the crap propaganda for any newborns who live long enough to hear it for the 1st time.

President Obama is set to announce his plan this week to address the growing threat of climate change.

We'll know more specifics on Tuesday, but it's expected he'll offer a bold, national approach to reducing carbon pollution -- and lay out a vision to lead global efforts to fight climate change.

The powerful, well-financed forces who still deny the science behind climate change aren't going to like this -- and they'll be fighting this progress every step of the way. In fact, before he's even seen the plan, House Speaker John Boehner is calling it "absolutely crazy."

That's why President Obama is calling on all of us -- anyone who believes that climate change is a threat -- to join him in taking action right now.

A movement of millions elected President Obama. Let's keep fighting for change. Chip in $5 or more to support Organizing for Action today.

Paid for by Organizing for Action

Contributions or gifts to Organizing for Action are not tax deductible.

This email was sent to: dka01@live.com.
If that is not your preferred email address, you can update your information here. We believe that emails are a vital way to stay in direct contact with supporters. Click here if you'd like to unsubscribe from these messages.
Organizing for Action, P.O. Box 66732 Washington, D.C. 20035

You are one of the 80,021 EDF activists who have stood in support of Gina McCarthy as the next EPA Administrator—and I wanted to make sure you heard the great news that broke yesterday afternoon.

After Senator David Vitter (R-LA) led a boycott of last week's confirmation vote in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the committee reconvened yesterday and voted to send McCarthy to the full Senate for final confirmation. Your voice is being heard and this highly qualified nominee is one step closer to filling a very important position for our clean air and climate future.

You've already added your voice to this confirmation effort. Please take the next step by asking your friends and social networks to "Stand with Gina" today. Use our share buttons below, or copy and paste this message:

Guess what the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources did with a state-funded scientific report on the flooding, contamination, and coastal "dead zones" that climate change could bring to the state?1

They buried it. The department's politically-appointed board said it didn't want to address "the reasons for climate change, which remain under scientific debate."2

There is no scientific debate—only a political one.

When we found out about this, UCS members sprang into action—and after scrutiny from local media and people like you, state officials now say they will release the report.3

We need your help to make sure they keep their promise—and to fight the suppression of science whenever and wherever it happens.

Stand up to the political manipulation of facts. Donate now and help reach our $50,000 goal.

Why support UCS? Because attacks like these won't stop. Right now, science is under threat in state houses around the country:

In North Carolina, lawmakers are trying to repeal the state's renewable energy standards using a bill drafted by coal and oil company-backed groups.4

In Missouri, legislators are trying to force science teachers to give equal time to "intelligent design" and "destiny" when they discuss the theory of evolution.5 But the last time I checked, scientists decide what science is—not politicians.

With your support, our policy and media teams run rapid-response campaigns that inform the public about abuses of science and power. And our efforts are effective. In just the past few months UCS played a leading role in beating back an effort in Kansas—home of Koch Industries—to gut that state's renewable energy standard.

But we also go beyond the attacks—evaluating how business and government treat science and scientists. Our recent report, Grading Government Transparency, details how federal agencies allow scientists to communicate with the public. One agency immediately took notice: Just four hours after the report's release, the U.S. Geological Survey publicly adopted our recommendations.

Your support helps put groundbreaking reports in the hands of decision makers and allows UCS to respond at a moment's notice when science or scientists are attacked. We need you: please make a gift today.

I know I can count on you to stand with us. Please, contribute what you can.

The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.

I sent a reply:

Also I think all of you groups - like the Sierra club, AARP, The American Cancer Society, the AMA, FDA, EPA, Green Tech/Clean Tech etc. You all need to network to inspire a wider audience - Synergy -

Global Warming ( climate change ) - major factors = fossil fuel, extraction and use - Power, Transportation, industry - also ties directly in with causes of disease/death (cancer being foremost ?) due to it's ( Fossil Fuel ) pollution/poisoning of the Air Land and Water ( ground water especially with fracking ).

Synergy - Get together so that the whole (combined) is greater than the sum of the parts (individual efforts).

The same lawmakers who deny climate science are now the ones standing in the way of making any environmental progress whatsoever.

Last week, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee was scheduled to vote on the nomination of Gina McCarthy, a bipartisan choice to be the next Environmental Protection Agency administrator.

None of the eight Republican members of the committee showed up, boycotting the vote, and effectively blocking it altogether.

Here's a detail that's getting left out of the news reports: Seven of those Republicans don't actually believe in the science behind climate change -- and they refuse the notion that we have a responsibility to act on it.

You said you'd like to be part of the team holding these climate deniers accountable, and this is exactly the moment to get going.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
McCarthy is an ideal candidate to run the EPA -- in 2009, the Senate easily confirmed her to head the EPA's Clean Air Division. Before that, she worked as the environmental enforcer for Mitt Romney in Massachusetts.

More importantly, she's answered every reasonable question asked of her. All McCarthy wants to do is the job President Obama has asked her to do -- the job of keeping our air and water clean, and our children healthy and safe from pollution.

These climate deniers need to stop playing games -- this isn't a time for partisan politics. Climate change is a real problem, and as the EPA works to combat carbon pollution as well as keep toxic chemicals out of our air and water, it needs a leader like McCarthy.

As long as they're in denial, we're going to be calling them out.

Share this graphic with your friends and ask them to join the team of people holding deniers accountable:

I must admit - I have stated that those standing in the way of positive change should have their photos sent out to the public.

I sent back this reply:

BTW - Do you really want to be a leader on fighting Global Warming?

If so. You might want to look into - The Liquid Metal Battery - Storage & Distribution Of Electricity - "STORAGE" of electricity held for use and distributed as needed by the demand on the Power Grid - no more power surges or Brown-outs or Black-outs. The missing link to the improvement of thePower Grid as well as a boost for clean energy. Check it out - http://t.co/r8oTiD6akk

Would also help if you finally rejected the XL Keystone pipeline - I mean the word is already out - the tar sands are meant - TARGETED - For Export - not for meeting any need in the USA.

Stop fracking - also being done not for NEED but for GREED - as this is also being Exported - Hence Not Needed in the USA.

Commit to clean energy. Consider federal supported public works in the 50 states to upgrade our fragile and wasteful Power Grid Infra structure - there are the millions of jobs that are needed to get this country employed - combat global warming - and pump money back into circulation in the economy.

Because the wallstreet/bank stimulus? Admit it - TOTAL FAILURE - TBTF should have been broken-up into manageable pieces - the money pumped into that system is not getting out into circulation in the economy. TRICKLE DOWN HAS NEVER WORKED - not for the people - as nothing was put into motion - ever - to promote job growth in the USA.

You want the plain and simple truth about the economy??? As it is plain to see that you are not hearing about it from your advisers.

Let ME help - check this out - it is short sweet and to the point - youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI … Common Sense Reality. Economic Truth. Plain & Simple. Watch Consider Share Circulate Please!!!

Austerity does not work - it makes bad worse - consider the truth about austerity measures ( attacks on medicare and social security to name a couple ). Austerity = Democide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide . Get familiar with the term the public is as it is out on social media. Share the term with the senate and congress. Most especially to those in office who are in open rebellion against the Constitution and so this Country.

When it comes to constitutions, the application of law, and common sense, the Supreme Court of the United States could learn a thing or two from President Judge Debbie O’Dell-Seneca of the Washington County Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania.

O’Dell-Seneca overruled a previous decision that sealed a settlement between a Mount Pleasant Township family and large energy corporations, which caused the family harm because of fracking on an adjacent property to their own. The Observer-Reporter and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette pressed the suit, which ultimately decided the public’s right to be informed outstripped the corporation’s right to privacy.

In fact, O’Dell-Seneca went much further than that. The judge asserted corporations have no constitutional rights:

“...the constitution vests in business entities no special rights that the laws of this Commonwealth cannot extinguish. In sum, [corporations] cannot assert [constitutional privacy] protections because they are not mentioned in its text.”

“...it is axiomatic that corporations, companies, and partnerships have no ‘spiritual nature,’ ‘feelings,’ ‘intellect,’ ‘beliefs,’ ‘thoughts,’ ‘emotions,’ or ‘sensations,’ because they do not exist in the manner that humankind exists… They cannot be ‘let alone’ by government, because businesses are but grapes, ripe upon the vine of the law, that the people of this Commonwealth raise, tend, and prune at their pleasure and need.”

Despite the mainstream media’s blackout on any reporting that calls into question corporate personhood, this recent decision is an important victory for our movement.

CELDF Executive Director Thomas Linzey writes:

“The ruling represents the first crack in the judicial armor that has been so meticulously welded together by major corporations. And it affirms what many communities already know -- that change only occurs when people begin to openly question and challenge legal doctrines that have been treated as sacred by most lawyers and judges.”

Laws follow culture and the legal system adjusts as society's views shift. This case illustrates that we are collectively beginning to change hearts and minds about the appropriate role of the corporation in society, even amongst those who are entrenched in the current system.

P.S. In a recent episode of Move to Amend Reports, Shannon Biggs of Global Exchange talked about community rights, rights of nature, and fracking. Listen here!

And tune in this week when Egberto and Laura interview Carl Gibson from Operation Green Jobs, a march to the US Chamber of Commerce headquarters in DC all the way from Philadelphia between May 18th and 24th. Move to Amend Reports is every Thursday at 5pm Pacific/8pm Eastern and can be heard live or recorded at http://blogtalkradio.com/movetoamend.

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

Minnesota - Snow all through April while except for North and South Dakota the rest of the country experienced warmer than normal temps.

Minnesota widespread snow and sleet into the 1st week of may - now predicted for tomorrow ( way out of season again ) Tuesday the 14th our 1st 90 degree day. Today it is currently 60 degrees outside ( 1:20pm central ).

Good News - am I the only one - or have any of you noticed how different groups are now networking? Employing Synergy - as they are now often times forwarding the same information and action alerts as well as presenting complimentary petitions as well as forwarding some of the same petitions. Getting good information out into wide circulation. Making the Whole greater than the Sum of their parts.

The President's speech two years ago included a promise we can all agree with: We should strengthen Social Security without cutting the benefits of current retirees.

But just over a month ago on Meet the Press, the president said: "One of the proposals we've made was something called Chained CPI... an adjustment in how inflation is calculated on Social Security." It sounds simple, but this shortsighted change will mean $112 billion in cuts to Social Security over ten years.

President Obama needs to keep his promise. The chained CPI proposal would lower the yearly cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for current retirees, leaving seniors struggling to keep up with the rising cost of prescriptions, utilities, and health care.

Huge news: Because of our pressure, two co-founders of Mark Zuckerberg's dark-money group FWD.us withdrew their support this weekend over the organization's cynical political strategy.

Public perception has turned 180 degrees on Zuckerberg's group in less than a week because we organized with our partners to decry their clumsy, backdoor strategy of advocating for immigration reform by spouting terrible environmental policy.

Now it's time for other major backers of FWD.us -- including LinkedIn's Reid Hoffman, eBay's John Donahoe, Yahoo's Marissa Mayer, Kleiner Perkins' John Doerr, and Microsoft's founder Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer -- to take the same step and disavow these flawed political tactics.

The campaign we started with our allies is creating an impossible bind for Silicon Valley heavies who won't abide spreading right-wing environmental lines through a couple of dark-money front groups created specifically to give influential legislators political cover.

Elon Musk, founder of eco-friendly Tesla Motors, said over the weekend that he could not back an organization like FWD.us that pushed immigration reform by selling out the environment or other core progressive issues. David Sacks, of social networking site Yammer, also left the group in the dustup.

The departure of these technology titans shows that even the founders of FWD.us are second-guessing the strategy of supporting deeply regressive policies to advance their industry's legitimate interest in comprehensive immigration reform.

Their resignations also give us the best opportunity yet to make sure FWD.us never plays this cynical dark-money game again.

Because we united, leading a coalition including CREDO, the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, Democracy for America, and others, we're shaking up the power structure of some of the wealthiest individual and corporate interests in America.

For those of you who don't want to read the entire survey-here are the highlights.

"Framing the climate change debate and constructing expertise
Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists, we reconstruct their framings of the issue and knowledge claims to position themselves within their organizational and their professional institutions."

"In our field of study, we note that there is a distinction between experts who express concern about the rapidly changing climate and those who deny that there is a problem related to climate change. The ensuing debate is often caricatured as a war between two sides – ‘you either believe in climate change or you don’t’ – especially in North America. We find that virtually all respondents (99.4%) agree that the climate is changing. However, there is considerable disagreement as to cause, consequences, and lines of action (as outlined in Figure 2). On this basis, we find five different frames, each of them summarized in Table 3. Eight percent of respondents did not provide enough information regarding their framing of climate change to be categorized. "

-----FINDINGS-----

"The largest group of APEGA respondents (36%) draws on a frame that we label ‘comply with Kyoto’. In their diagnostic framing, they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause."

"The second largest group (24%) express a ‘nature is overwhelming’ frame. In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth. Their focus is on the past: ‘If you think about it, global warming is what brought us out of the Ice Age.’ Humans are too insignificant to have an impact on nature:"

"Fatalists’, a surprisingly large group (17%), diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are sceptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling: ‘The number of variables and their interrelationships are almost unlimited – if anyone thinks they have all the answers, they have failed to ask all of the questions.’ "

"Ten percent of respondents draw on an ‘economic responsibility’ frame. They diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable."

"The last group (5%) expresses a frame we call ‘regulation activists’. This frame has the smallest number of adherents, expresses the most paradoxical framing, and yet is more agentic than ‘comply with Kyoto’. Advocates of this frame diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life."

99.4% say that the climate is changing. No “climate change” deniers here. NONE. BUT

36% say climate change is not a normal cycle of nature and that humans are the central cause of it24% say climate change is a natural, normal cycle of Earth.
17% say it’s both humans and nature, but the science isn’t settled and no one has all the answers10% say it could be nature or it could be humans, but the cause is unknown
*5% say it’s both nature and human, but only poses a moderate risk

Conclusion-There IS NO CONSENSUS among APEGA members that humans are the direct cause of global warming.

There is also no consensus among "broadcast meteorologists" . From a 2010 survey "conducted by the congressionally funded National Environmental Education Foundation and vetted by an advisory board of climate experts from groups such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, and Pew Center for Global Climate Change.”-

FINDINGS- Only 25% of those surveyed agreed with the IPCC that humans are the cause. NO CONSENSUS.

“Only one in four Only one in four American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agrees with United Nations’ claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming, a survey published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reports."

"The survey results contradict the oft-repeated assertion that a consensus of scientists believes humans are causing a global warming crisis."

"Joe D’Aleo, executive director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project and first director of meteorology at the Weather Channel, is not surprised by the survey results."

“AMS has tried very hard to brainwash broadcast meteorologists by forcing them to attend conferences and teleconferences with one-sided presentations where global warming evangelism is preached,” D’Aleo said. “Broadcasters send me notifications they get from AMS telling them they must attend these conferences where only the alarmist point of view is preached. This survey shows that broadcast meteorologists are not swayed by these one-sided presentations."

Now in 2013- From an AMS survey taken "where all respondents are AMS meteorologists, a majority have Ph.D.s and fully 80% have a Ph.D. or Masters Degree, position statements by organizational bureaucracies carry little scientific weight" (So these are not News TV weathermen...these are scientific meteorologists)

"According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming.This sharp contrast between the large majority of meteorologists who believe global warming is happening and the modest minority who are nevertheless very worried about it is consistent with other scientist surveys."

" This contrast exposes global warming alarmists who assert that 97% of the world’s scientists agree humans are causing a global warming crisis simply because these scientists believe global warming is occurring. However, as this and other scientist surveys show, believing that some warming is occurring is not the same as believing humans are causing a worrisome crisis."

"Other questions solidified the meteorologists’ skepticism about humans creating a global warming crisis. For example, among those meteorologists who believe global warming is happening, only a modest majority (59%) believe humans are the primary cause. More importantly, only 38% of respondents who believe global warming is occurring say it will be very harmful during the next 100 years."

No consensus here that humans are the cause either.

The empirical evidence says there is no consensus, so why are people perpetuating the myth that there is one? Seems rather unscientific to declare something to be true when the evidence shows it is not.

Ok, 'BetsyR' - I examined all four of your links above, with some care and guess what ? I do NOT come to your 'conclusions' ! Quelle surprise, n'est ce pas ?

Your whole seemingly intricate - but actually mainly copy/pasted post, was really coming out of James Taylor's [ http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/ ] blog posting, from that rather infamous '0.01%er House Journal' - 'Forbes Magazine' that you are so enamoured of and your other links are gleaned from there too - although you had enough good sense to at least leave out the 'Heartland's Institute' link, lol.

The only other major 'source' that got you all so very hot and bothered, was from yet another denialist blog [ http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/ ] a post by none other than 'professional denialist' Benny Pieser [ http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/dr-benny-peiser/ ] - who is currenty based at the only private university in the UK & which is funded ONLY by Private Corporate Donors. 'Pisser' is extremely close to 'Lords' Lawson and Monkton - people who are regarded as being on the lunatic 'AGW-Denialist' fringe in the UK. Your two other links are cherry picked form James Taylor's, Forbes blog and were chosen of course by him (& you?) for maximum obfuscation.

This shit won't wash here 'BetsyR' & neither will : "The empirical evidence says there is no consensus, so why are people perpetuating the myth that there is one? Seems rather unscientific to declare something to be true when the evidence shows it is not." - but thanx for playing here and your bumping my thread. I could deconstruct these links further (& may do in further replies) but frankly my comments & links on this thread have done that already but I do re-append & highly recommend, the following 'fyi' :

"Climate of Doubt" describes the 'Libertarian' individuals and groups behind a well organized effort to attack science by actually undermining scientists and to try to unseat politicians who say they believe there is current climate change caused by human activity. This film also investigates the funding which powers the sceptic movement in the name of free market, anti-regulation, small government causes and finds that funding has shifted away from fossil fuel companies to more ideological & less public sources.

So who are these 'free market think tanks & institutes' behind the pseudo-libertarian denialist crusade ?

"Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree." - excerpted from the first 'Nation of Change' link below :

The last is not an overly long paper but if it's too much like hard work for you, skip to conclusions and work back perhaps. So 'BetsyR', re. your post, links & thoughts on Anthropomorphic Global Warming ...

Do you not understand the difference between an article ON a report/survey/study, and the actual report/survey/study? I linked directly to the survey done AND highlighted and quoted (note the quotation marks) the survey from it's website directly. Which you would KNOW for YOURSELF, if you had even bothered to READ the survey.

I also read and highlighted reports on the American Meteorological Society Member Survey on Global Warming: Preliminary Findings, February 2012 AND posted a link TO THE ACTUAL REPORT on the George Mason University website so people could actually check for themselves to see if the reports were true. You OBVIOUSLY did NOT READ that report either.

Why? Scared? Too hard? Or just not worth your time if it might affect or reflect upon your personal agenda? (see I can make half assed and completely shit based assumptions about you as well!)

Contrary to your accusations, I actually READ the scientific reports referenced in articles, and when I find them credible, I provide a link DIRECTLY to those reports. Unlike you, I don't discount an actual study or research simply because I don't like or agree with whomever decided to write up an article about that study or research.

For example, I read the Nation of Change article, and found it doesn't disagree with me. What you didn't "get" (because you haven't read the surveys I'm talking about) is that the vast majority of the scientists from the surveys I posted DID NOT DENY global warming. On that, there WAS CONSENSUS. There was not consensus on the WHY of global warming.

Even the climate of change link you posted states-"Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming."

These scientists are saying there are discrepancies, flaws, reasons for doubt, and even your author does not classify them as rejecting global warming. And the fact that there are so many papers out there on those discrepancies, flaws, reasons for doubt would be WHAT? ...Apparently there's a whole bunch of NON consensus on something going on in the scientific community.

And when you ask large groups of those scientists-in order to gather factual, empirical evidence on what they believe/know...something science is supposed to demand-you find out that statements made on their behalf, which is NOT scientific or accurate, like the one you quoted are false.

I am aware of ARM...thank you though.

Your last link was "highly relevant" in 2004.

I'm interested in the data, not where the money comes from to fund the research. If it's scientifically arrived at, it doesn't really matter to me. Although I DID point out that the 2010 survey I referenced was

"conducted by the congressionally funded National Environmental Education Foundation and vetted by an advisory board of climate experts from groups such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, and Pew Center for Global Climate Change.”

Are you saying that they are part of the groups undermining scientists and science?!!

No 'BetsyR', you are wrong to think that I had not looked at your links. The theses of the survey in the paper which you connected to, was all about 'Management Theory' as applied to the issue of A.G.W. & written by 'Management Science' practitioners for 'Management Consultants and Policy Advisers'. It's a revealing study in obfuscation and is 'Corporate Management Newspeak' but not really any kind of hard scientific critique and it is more of a treatise on the 'Manufacture of Consent' ; Perception Management and Public Relations, in my opinion.

Its authors, Lianne M. Lefsrud, (University of Alberta, Canada) & Renate E. Meyer (Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria and The Copenhagen Business School, Denmark) are not scientists. They teach 'Management Theory' to future and present 'Management & Business Consultants' and they are, I think - really professional corporate perception managers at 'Business Schools'.

The introduction starts with : "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? (Inhofe, 2003) ... & then they (& you?) proceed to try to show how to illustrate this. Sen. Inhofe ?! Seriously ?!!

They go on to say themselves : "we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries. Not only are we interested in the positions they take towards climate change and in the recommendations for policy development and organizational decision-making that they derive from their "Framings", but also in how they construct and attempt to safeguard their expert status against others. To gain an understanding of the competing expert claims and to link them to issues of professional resistance and defensive institutional work, we combine insights from various disciplines and approaches: Framing, Professions Literature and Institutional Theory." So - 'Red flags', anyone ?!

We can cherry pick quotes all day but we are (melting?!) poles apart 'BetsyR' and never the twain shall meet. You and I must do as consciences dictate but I seriously question the motives and nature of the funders of 'AFG-Denial' very much indeed :

So I again repeat that, "Climate of Doubt" describes the 'Libertarian' individuals and groups behind a well organized effort to attack science by actually undermining scientists and to try to unseat politicians who say they believe there is current climate change caused by human activity. This film also investigates the funding which powers the sceptic movement in the name of free market, anti-regulation, small government causes and finds that funding has shifted away from fossil fuel companies to more ideological & less public sources.

Once again 'BetsyR' - how can we as a sentient species, consider that we can bypass the Carbon Cycle and extract huge amounts of carbon based fuels, burn them and almost instantly (in geological time) return this carbon to the atmosphere Without There Being Any Repercussions ?! What is our individual and collective intuition on this matter ?!!

That Carbon Dioxide even tho' it is essential to life via photo-synthesis, is also a 'Greenhouse Gas' is undeniable. The Greenhouse Effect is well understood and without it life on this planet would not exist. We owe our previously relatively stable climate to this and the level of CO2 has been pretty stable at ~ 300ppm (0.03%) for a very, very long time - verifiable from ice and lake sediment cores.

However, that proportion has risen in the last 50 years to ~390ppm (0.039%) which is a 30% increase in CO2 levels. Further, both water vapour and methane are also greenhouse gases and the level of both will also rise with rising global temperatures by 'positive feedback'.

A Human Influenced and possible 'run away' Greenhouse Effect is empirically, scientifically and mathematically possible, so the question is do we accept or 'believe' that it is happening ?

Do we wish to do anything about it ?! When you say that : "Your last link was "highly relevant" in 2004", then I'll leave by asking ... have the laws of physics changed since then ?!!

Now, if they were all "petroleum" vampires only interested in their jobs and money, you'd think they'd have all agreed that a) global warming is NOT happening (which they did not) and b) that they would have overwhelmingly said that human emissions are not at all to blame (which they did not)

And I NEVER suggested that the organization doing the survey was a scientific one. EVER. They were attempting to survey SCIENTISTS in the industries and understand not only what their claims are, but what they are based on. Hence the title "Sage Publications-Organization Studies".

I didn't hide any of that information because the point was that there is no consensus among this group of PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND GEO SCIENTISTS. Your paranoia and refusal to even consider the data without suspicion or bias indicates there's no use debating with you.

That you prefer to read articles published by people who are screaming that "run away greehouse effects are starting", but based on the DATA from NOAA, HADCRUT etc-it's easy to see that it's NOT.

Graph using NOAA's data set proves a LACK of climate sensitivity to CO2 for the past 100 years.

Now, if you want to debate the SCIENCE and the DATA, and the FINDINGS, be my guest. You can ad hominem me or my sources all day but I'd be more interested in knowing why you don't doubt the motives and nature of the people who keep claiming that the "science" proves something that it does not, and never has, PROVEN.

Scientific truth is arrived at by research, evidence, and verifiable-duplicate-able testing and observation. It has never, EVER, been arrived at based on popular vote.

'BetsyR' - please don't be so shrill, defensive and obtuse. I actually do, do my homework and with no less diligence than you and I strongly encourage readers to peruse your linked "survey" paper - tho' I regard it more as an 'Obfuscation Strategy' paper : http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full !!!

Re. your "The "professional experts" might work in the petroleum/related industries, but they are "The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta " APEGA. Duh." from above. Well 'BetsyR', what else do we know about Alberta, Canada ?!!! ''Tar Sands and Pipelines'' peut-etre ?!! So, should I 'Double Duh' your 'Duh' back to you now, lol ?!

As M.Lefsrud & E.Meyer say themselves : "What is more, the fact that we study experts who work as corporate representatives and/or policy advisors makes apparent the social and political dimensions of this framing controversy. The influences of individual 'experts on decision-making' is dependent on their embeddedness within their organizations." So can anyone detect a theme here ? If not - then I strongly recommend your link to all readers, so that they can see for themselves.

Furthermore, re. your own : "Now, if they were all "petroleum" vampires only interested in their jobs and money, you'd think they'd have all agreed that a) global warming is NOT happening (which they did not) and b) that they would have overwhelmingly said that human emissions are not at all to blame (which ... they did not)" - Well, a) of course they can't "deny" that for which there is so much ample evidence & b) of course they can not say that because they are scientists who presumably can see the evidence too - so your rhetorical attempts to construct a 'straw man' counter argument serve you poorly here, I think.

We can trade references, quotes and papers all day but never the twain shall meet here. I find much of you say and link to be specious, tendentious and tenuous & maybe you can feel the same way and say the same. The scientific consensus that I see - you do not and you seek to undermine it. I've now read, listened to and watched much on the issue of AGW & I have come to my position over a long period of time. There IS massive scientific consensus about the what and the why & I too accept this now. See :

So, I'll re-repeat that : "Climate of Doubt" describes the 'Libertarian' individuals and groups behind a well organized effort to attack science by actually undermining scientists & to try to unseat politicians - who say they believe there is current climate change caused by human activity. This excellent doc. film also investigates the funding which powers the sceptic movement in the name of free market, anti-regulation, small government causes and finds that funding has shifted away now from the fossil fuel companies to more ideological and less public sources. For further insight, please also see the following short video :

I note that you have actually chosen to totally ignore my core points so as I'm in a rush now, I'll leave by echoing them again here : How can we, as a sentient species, consider that we can bypass the Carbon Cycle and extract huge amounts of carbon based fuels, burn them & then almost instantly (in geological time) return this carbon to the atmosphere Without There Being Any Repercussions ?! Is that rational ?!!

That Carbon Dioxide even tho' it is essential to life via photo-synthesis, is also a 'Greenhouse Gas' is undeniable.The Greenhouse Effect is well understood and without it life on this planet would not exist. We owe our previously relatively stable climate to this, and the level of CO2 has been pretty stable at 300ppm (0.03%) for a very, very long time (verifiable from ice and lake sediment cores). However, that proportion has risen in the last 50 years to ~390ppm (0.039%) which is a 30% increase in CO2 levels.

Further, both water vapour and methane are also greenhouse gases and the level of both will also rise with rising global temperatures by 'positive feedback'.A Human Influenced and also possible 'run away' Greenhouse Effect is empirically, scientifically and mathematically possible, so the question is do we accept or 'believe' that it is happening ? And do we as a species, really wish to do anything about it ?!

As you yourself so say :"Your paranoia and refusal to even consider the data without suspicion or bias indicates there's no use debating with you."& so I may as well ditto that back to you and we'll agree to disagree but do feel free to bump my thread some more and so thanx again in anticipation of the same.

"How can we, as a sentient species, consider that we can bypass the Carbon Cycle and extract huge amounts of carbon based fuels, burn them & then almost instantly (in geological time) return this carbon to the atmosphere Without There Being Any Repercussions ?! Is that rational ?!! "

I'll answer that with this question- How can we as a sentient species who is relatively NEW upon this planet geologically speaking, believe that all of the natural forces on this planet that have driven CO2 and temperatures both UP AND DOWN for eons suddenly all went dormant when we started burning fossil fuel? Is that rational?

How can you, as a sentient person, believe that the system called the "carbon pump", our oceans, which cover 2/3 of this planet and which scientists will tell you (consensus?) they know "very little about", has very little (if anything) to do with what goes on in our atmosphere? Is that rational?

I'm perfectly willing to accept that human CO2 MIGHT be causing the warming. But I'm not willing to accept that IT IS unless all the other factors can be ruled out entirely. I'm willing to read all the research from BOTH sides and compare and contrast and determine for myself what makes the most sense. Which means I don't give a rats behind who is PAYING for the scientific research to be done. Unless there is proof that the results are FAKE or WRONG it's still DATA.

You seem to believe that since "group X" is evil, then everything they offer their evil money to is automatically evil too. There are rich, evil people on BOTH sides of this argument so I must ask you, are you just as suspicious of the sources you gather your science from? Do you dispute every paper or study in which evil "leftist" has been accepted?

We know the government is corrupt. We know that government officials accept money and gifts and bribes etc from people who want to push their agendas. But you seem to believe that government funded scientists are above being affected by such things. That they are "exceptional" for some reason, and therefore should be trusted completely. Even when their predictions prove to be WRONG over and over and over.

There is EMPIRICAL evidence that CO2 lags temperatures, that the ocean outgases CO2, that the CO2 signature from burning fossil fuels is exactly the same as volcanic CO2, and that there are literally thousands of active volcanic regions in the oceans that are JUST being discovered. Why are you ignoring that empirical evidence when it scientifically and mathematically makes an alternative theory possible?

The actual, modern readings and empirical evidence is that human CO2 has risen steadily over the past 16 years and yet temperatures have not. But you don't seem to "accept or believe" the evidence. As a species, I think we have a moral imperative to figure out WHY.

Oh Betsy, your persistent missives are touching but somewhat misplaced as I'm thoroughly spoken for and answering questions with other questions may be coquettish but it isn't really answering anything !!

So in reply, re. - "How can we as a sentient species who is relatively NEW upon this planet geologically speaking, believe that all of the natural forces on this planet that have driven CO2 and temperatures both UP AND DOWN for eons suddenly all went dormant when we started burning fossil fuel?" Ummm, who's believing that about 'dormancy' BR ? Not me ! However, Vulcanism and the 'Carbon Pump' are a given ... whereas the mass extraction & release of ancient hydro-carbons is NOT !! This is the core point really !!!

I'm glad that you"are perfectly willing to accept CO2 MIGHT be causing warming" because without the Greenhouse Effect life on Earth would be impossible. The fundamental question is do changes in this have implications for Global Climate? For example, a thawing tundra releasing methane as well changed and warmer ocean currents releasing deep sea methane-hyrdates are another of the added factors of 'positive-feedback'. As is the 'Albedo Effect' of darker open water absorbing more of the sun's energy.

I'm glad that you're willing to read 'both sides' however I DO give more than a rat's ass about where the funding is coming form. I have a big problem with secretive, corporate, right-wing 'Libertarian' types like the http://donorstrust.org/ . The 'why?' is all encapsulated in :

Which describes the 'Libertarian' individuals and groups behind a well organized effort to attack science by actually undermining scientists & to try to unseat politicians - who say they believe there is current climate change caused by human activity.

This excellent doc. film also investigates the funding which powers the sceptic movement in the name of free market, anti-regulation, small government causes and finds that funding has shifted away now from the fossil fuel companies to more ideological and less public sources.

Something is afoot 'BetsyR' and the patterns of weather, climate and atmospheric composition are in a state of flux worldwide and unless there is a massive worldwide conspiracy of scientists across several disciplines out to dupe us all, then I'll have to go with the consensus scientific opinion as evidenced by :

I shall quote the conclusion from the last link, here : "We have shown that longwave downward radiation flux increases at Earth’s surface can be accurately measured, subdivided and explicitly explained and backed with model calculations as cloud-, temperature-, water vapour- and enhanced greenhouse gas radiative forcing effect. Large differences on uncorrected longwave downward radiation measurements, which are caused by local effects such as cloud variability and temperature and humidity variations can be properly accounted for.Thus the resulting uniform increase of longwave downward radiation manifests radiative forcing that is induced by increased greenhouse gas concentrations and water vapor feedback, and proves the ‘‘theory’’ of greenhouse warming with direct observations."

What was physics in 2004 'BetsyR', remains physics today. You don't subscribe to AGW - I do but I appreciate your billet doux !!

Funny, your comment about "what was physics in 2004 remains physics today". I wonder why it that the "physics" used in the 2007 IPCC report were all wrong about where this planet would be 5 years later? Why did so many of their predictions based on "physics" fail to occur? Maybe the planet just doesn't agree with their physics?

Have you heard? President Obama made a surprise announcement about Keystone XL in his climate address on Tuesday. Obama made it clear that he won't approve Keystone if it harms the climate, because making global warming worse is not in the "national interest."

We know it will DESTROY the climate, causing as much damage as 51 dirty coal plants*, and so does President Obama. Over one million of us already sent that message to the State Department in April. So what the president is really asking is that we turn up the volume, and make it inescapably obvious that Keystone is a climate-killer. And to do that, I need your help.

If we raise $500, we can place the ad online everywhere Obama and his White House staff click.

If we raise $5,000, we can place the ad in a billboard near the White House and the EPA.

And if we raise $10,000, we can run a TV version on the ad on Obama's favorite channel, ESPN.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that building a massive oil pipeline to tap a previously un-mined source of dirty oil will make global warming worse. That's why NASA expert Jim Hansen said approving Keystone would be "game over" for the climate. But the State Department has found—in an oil company-funded study**—that Keystone XL would have NO effect on the climate. So President Obama has laid down a challenge for us—prove that the State Department is wrong.

It is a great victory for the movement stop Keystone XL that Obama is even talking about carbon pollution in the same breath as the tar sands. We can't just wait for him to decide—we have to keep fighting to make sure we win the argument and show him how passionate we are and how closely we are following this issue. And that means repeating over and over again our message as visibly as possible—No on Keystone XL, which would be Game Over for the climate!

Thank you for being in the fight,
Jesse Bacon, Field Organizer
Environmental Action

Exactly - what is pointed out in further detail in the included articles. He said if the state department determins - well - WTF they hired the industry to draw their own conclusions. What is being asked for here is support in calling for a rejection of keystoneXL - regardless of what the state department may say.

America is already paying a steep price for the severe weather fueled by global warming. Protecting our families and our planet from even more devastating consequences in the future demands bold action.

Today, in recognition of this reality, President Obama delivered the leadership we need. His plan will:

limit global warming pollution from new and existing power plants,

advance energy efficiency programs, including higher standards for new appliances,

boost support for solar power and wind power, and

increase U.S. leadership in international efforts to combat global warming.

It’s going to be hard to keep future generations safe from the impacts of global warming.

Today, thanks in part to your action and support, President Obama took a big step in the right direction.

PS - Get all members of government ( state and federal ) to work on ending the export of Oil Gasoline LNG - as this is being done for Fossil Fuel Profits "ALONE" and seriously undermines the efforts to reduce Atmospheric Pollution - we need to reduce drilling and fracking ( as we move to end it completely ) NOT EXPAND. You want natural gas??? Work on getting/making it safely for our environment = AIR SOIL & Ground water. Capture sewer gas and landfill gas and create gas with recycling bio material = waste from farm crops and such ( then recycle the plant matter back to the fields as NATURAL Fertilizer ).

Thanx for your many valuable contributions on this thread. Whereas I have read and twinkled them all in acknowledgement, your comments seem to be being targeted for stinkling by multi-idented coropo-shills and other reactionaries. No matter and persevere and solidarity @ u.

Author Zac Unger was originally drawn to the arctic circle to write a “mournful elegy” about how global warming was decimating the polar bear populations. He was surprised to find that the polar bears were not in such dire straits after all.

“There are far more polar bears alive today than there were 40 years ago,” Unger told NPR in an interview about his new book, “Never Look a Polar Bear in The Eye.” “There are about 25,000 polar bears alive today worldwide. In 1973, there was a global hunting ban. So once hunting was dramatically reduced, the population exploded.”

“This is not to say that global warming is not real or is not a problem for the polar bears,” Unger added. “But polar bear populations are large, and the truth is that we can’t look at it as a monolithic population that is all going one way or another.”

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, there are an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears worldwide, living in Canada, Greenland, the northern Russian coast, islands of the Norwegian coast, and the northwest Alaskan coast.

Polar bears became a focal point for environmentalists after former Vice President Al Gore featured them in his 2006 global warming documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” The bears were classified as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act to in May 2008 because their habitat was being threatened by global warming.

Unger wanted to write the definitive book on how man-made global warming was destroying polar bear habitats and leading to their extinction. He packed up his family and moved north to Churchill, Manitoba — called the ”Polar Bear Capital of the World” because of the large amounts of bears that congregate near it in the autumn.

“My humble plan was to become a hero of the environmental movement,” Unger told NPR. “I was going to go up to the Canadian Arctic, I was going to write this mournful elegy for the polar bears, at which point I’d be hailed as the next coming of John Muir and borne aloft on the shoulders of my environmental compatriots.”

“So when I got up there, I started realizing polar bears were not in as bad a shape as the conventional wisdom had led me to believe, which was actually very heartening, but didn’t fit well with the book I’d been planning to write,” he added.

Naah !!! You're the hoax Chucky !! Bet you didn't even read the forum-post or click on a single link here, did you ?! So Chucky, time to look into a mirror darkly and see what is reflected as you ask yourself 'The Grail Question' - "Who Do You Serve ?"

Here you go Chucky, put your "Libertopian" (Copyright GF) bollocks aside for 75 minutes and try to see what OWS is all about :

GF called you a "douchebag" ?!!! Awwwww, de-dums, did she upset you ?!! I hope she offered you some Kleenex ! Also, you just bet and lost Chucky ! Or course I read your b-s post even tho' it was written by someone else - just on the slim chance that it was vaguely sensible !! Btw, it's 'Libertarian Utopian' and you'll geT iT if you jusT focus on The T !!!

Keep it up with the bumps and the killer jokes Chucky, as with a razor sharp wit likes yours - you'll go far and maybe even make it to the county line - one day ;-)

I'm guessing you identify more with the Tea Party. Which are just intellectually challenged libertarians. I don't think you're smart enough to even realize you're spouting libertarian crap. You probably don't even know what libertarian philosophy is. Except what Rand Paul and the Koch Bros. tell you.

Go ahead. Look it up. Libertarian. Right wing anarchism. Who knew huh? You're an anarchist and didn't even know it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's the 'right wing' part that's the real problem.

You posted a piece by Arthur Herman and the AEI. Why else would you post libertarian crap if you're not a libertarian? That would be like me posting something from Robert Reich or Joseph Stiglitz, like this -

But saying I don't lean progressive. That wouldn't make alot of sense. See what I mean?

I don't think you know what libertarianism is. I don't think you know what the AEI is. I think you're just figuring this out now. It's fine. There's lots of things we don't know until we find out. That's the way we learn.

Low information is identifying with the tea party without knowing that it's libertarian. Or, being libertarian and not knowing that it's right wing anarchism. It's roots and foundation are based on anarchism. We all learn new things all the time. That's beneficial. Nothing to be embarrassed about.

I'm a moderate progressive. I think Pres. Obama's sensibilities are in the right place. But there's a large gap between progressive sensibilities and the right wing anarchists in Congress.

No,you are a low information voter. You've demonstrated that by all your posts and your apparent love affair with "Obama's sensibilities". You voted for Obama again without ay regard to any facts of what a failure he was and still is.

You don't care about facts. You care about Ideology and the Progressive agenda. You don't care about reality,you see things not as they are but as you think they should be and that's all that matters to you. You believe that America is wrong,unjust and unfair. You don't believe in a persons right to defend themselves. You believe in living under a tyranny,under the thumb of the Government.

You don't let information get in the way of believing whatever you want to believe about anything. The truth and facts are something to be ignored.

Low information voter is what you are. You've shown that by continually voting for Obama when the facts and the truth of his failings and complete incompetence is well known. Because your ideology and Progressive agenda is far more important then the well being of the country.

You have to ignore the facts and close your eyes and plug your ears to the truth to continue believing Obama and the Democrats are working for the country instead of against the country.

You believe in Obama's agenda and he is destroying this country. You are a useful drone.

Now that we have the nicities out of the way, what exactly is this tyranny you speak of?

'You believe that America is wrong,unjust and unfair' - I don't think that at all. I believe that we have had 30 years of bad economic policy. Trickle down economics/neoliberal economic polcies have been a terrible failure. Way past their expiration date.

'You don't believe in a persons right to defend themselves' - Sure I do. We have the right to reasonable self defense. This is rooted in common law and case law. I don't think military explosives are reasonable.

'You believe in living under a tyranny,under the thumb of the Government' - uh nooooo. I believe that government has a role to play for the benefit of a civilized society, that promotes the general welfare. Through policies that provide a foundation of opportunity for the majority of people. Basically, the opposite of right wing neoliberal/supply side policies. In what way do you believe neoliberal economic policies have been successful?

'he is destroying this country' - That is your opinion. Give me a specific policy example of how you believe he is destroying the nation. ie: taxes, stimulus, social policy. I can't respond to the generalities of your perceptions. You're giving me your opinion without providing any supporting evidence of this so-called destruction. What specifically do you perceive as so destructive and why.

'That would make you incredibly selfish' - I'm sorry you feel that way. We happen to disagree about libertarianism is all. I don't believe in right wing anarchism. As a general rule. You do. That's fine. Tell me why you think libertarianism is a better philosophy than a moderate progressive one.

You don't need me to show you the truth it's all around you everyday,all you have to do is open your eyes,ears and mind and you'll be surprised how ridiculous your questions and assumptions really are.

The Senate easily confirmed McCarthy in 2009 to head the clean air division of the EPA. And she's known as a fair-minded and dedicated public health official that has worked with both parties to find cooperative solutions that can save the environment in economically beneficial ways.

She's already helped secure historic public health safeguards at the EPA including life-saving standards to restrict soot, mercury, and other toxics — safeguards that will avert thousands of heart attacks and premature deaths each year and prevent tens of thousands of asthma attacks annually.

Let your senators know that we need an EPA chief who will listen to the science and public health officials, not industry lobbyists.

Translation: "climate change, means ANYTHING we want it to, so we are always right". and of course...the remedy is...more regulation, higher taxes, and less industry,. Bottom line, these ignorant LIARS want a regression in the American Economy so they can feel better about their self loathing and guilt for any industrial progress.

Consider - ad hominem twaddle doesn't cut it or an argument make !!! Who is this "we" you are referring to ?!! The ALEC / Corporate "we" ?! There are numerous links you can learn from on this thread, but here's another :

"Climate of Doubt" describes the 'Libertarian' individuals and groups behind a well organized effort to attack science by actually undermining scientists and to try to unseat politicians who say they believe there is current climate change caused by human activity. This film also investigates the funding which powers the sceptic movement in the name of free market, anti-regulation, small government causes and finds that funding has shifted away from fossil fuel companies to more ideological & less public sources.

So who are these 'free market think tanks' & 'institutes' behind this pseudo-libertarian crusade ?

Consider your (...x...) kicked by DKAt as that is what putting your empty head in the sand gets you around here !!! Did you even read the article or, perish the thought - open any links on this thread ?!! Don't be a dolt all your life !

Yep, and the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. 'Lignite' huh ? That's 'brown coal' - you took your moniker from probably THE most polluting kind of coal, huh ? You should spew less smoke and consider the interconnectedness of our climate, environment and the wider world at large.

you're against capitalism, against people who are ambitious and succeed. you're all for equal outcome because thats " fair" . what garbage. dont like the price of fuel? it dosnt have to be as high as it is. allow drilling, allow the bakken field and marcellus field to be utilized. the usa has more oil and natural gas than the entire world but it doesnt mean a thing if you dont utilize it.

You succeeded. congratulations, you will be hit with massive new taxes starting january 2013. i'm sure you'll be thrilled to pay your " fair share" If as you say you are successful, why should you be penalized for it, you already pay taxes. with the govt , there is never enough money because they refuse to cut spending. what if you continuously spend more money than you have, you would go broke. would it be" fair "to have other people pay your bills while you continue to rack up more and more debt ?

This Admin has already cut almost a trillion dollars in spending. They have also cut the $1.4T annual deficit Bush left us in 2009 to an estimated $900B in the 2013 budget.

My success is not relevant. I don't fall into the catagories of those getting tax increases. If I did. I would gladly pay my fair share. No tax increases discussed will create any pain what so ever for the wealthy.

it doesnt matter how much money the govt confiscates from the people, if the spending is not cut. it doesnt matter.160 bil +300 bil = 460 bil .even if you raise that 160 to 300, you then have 600 bil. it does not equal the 16 trillion. one trillion is one thousand billion.